Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 30

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NothingMuch (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 30 August 2006 (afd3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 29 August 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner

Although an authoritative source on the making of Blade Runner it is not itself historically notable, and short of writing a book review there is not a lot to be said in the article that isn't already said in just two lines. Cain Mosni 00:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Online Learning

Learn Direct is a British company providing online courses and courseware. Cain Mosni 00:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenthall house

NN - nothing to merge into main article. Delete. BlueValour 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically true, but if the redirect is undone, we could point to this debate and reinstate it. If it wasn't merged to begin with (in which case we should redirect per GFDL), I can live with a delete and redirect too. While it's technically possible to undo a redirect it doesn't happen too much. - Mgm|(talk) 07:56, 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 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Inc.

Here we have another non notable webcomic, found here. There is no assertion of notability in the article, the website fails to rank on Alexa, and its previous domain (the author's personal art site) ranks at 1.3 million. - Hahnchen 00:41, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Wily

This webcomic is long finished so it's not exactly link spam like many others on Wikipedia, but it's still entirely non notable. It claims to be one of the big sprite comics, but only manages to come up with 80 Google links. There is a mention of its popularity found on the 8-bit theater website, here. But I don't think being one of the top sprite comics on BigPanda topsite for some period of time really amounts to something worth keeping. It's not like it was around in the early days of the internet or anything either, it ran from 2001 to 2004. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google shows nearly 8000 hits for "Life of Wily". Considering this is a title, this is a far better standard to judge google links by than the uncapitalized form of the search. Not only that, but Brian Clevinger wrote [an essay] on Webcomics which specifically mentions Life of Wily alongside his own comic and Bob & George. There's far less notable comics with Stubs than Life of Wily. Lankybugger 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment your figure of unique links is about right. there are plenty of Ghits pointing to buzzcomix, newbsoft and thefreedictionary included in the 8000 Ghits. Strip these out, along with the wiki mirrors and you are left with about 80. Ohconfucius 03:10, 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 per keeps being weak. —Xyrael / 13:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misty the Mouse

A furry webcomic, seen here. A Google search gives back 140 links for "misty the mouse" so doesn't suggest it's that popular. However, it has had one print edition by the furry comic book publisher Shanda Fantasy Arts so you might want to take that into account. But still, I don't think that everything which has seen print is notable, and I doubt if it wasn't a furry comic published by a furry publisher, and instead was a plain old book by a boring local press, it wouldn't be on Wikipedia, for all the right reasons. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

841 hits on Google.com. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm using unique Google hits as I always have done to cut out on all the mentions in forum signatures etc. And for me, that link gives the same result [1]. - Hahnchen 14:50, 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 and redirect to Zebes, content is substantially similar to (and less than) the version deleted at last AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Zebeth

This absolutely nn-webcomic was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Zebeth and can be seen here. A Google search for "Planet Zebeth" brings back 150 links. But note that, as can be seen in the Zebes article, that Planet Zebeth is another name for it, and many of the links refer to that and not the comic. And none of the links found are professional reviews/commentary etc. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:41, 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. recreated content Jaranda wat's sup 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoasterRadio.com

Advertisement for non-notable podcast. This may have been deleted previously - see User talk:Coastermom

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

The result was closed. The nominator didn't request deletion. Article has been tagged for transwikification. - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illeist

Dictionary entry, transwiki to Wiktionary Goblin ›talk 00:54, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hayne

This article regards a professional wrestler who's had a career in the lower-level ranks of the sport, had some success there, but hasn't appeared to make the jump into the big leagues - he's never had a notable run in the WWE, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, Extreme Championship Wrestling or WCW in his career. Now, I had a bit of an issue when I first saw this, but he does seem to not really be notable outside of the "indy" federations; I tagged with a PROD that was removed by the author - whose username is, by the way, the same as the wrestler in question, which suggests WP:VANITY issues. Anyhow, I noticed that this had been tagged for speedy deletion before I got to it, then was userfied by another editor - and recreated. So, when the prod was removed, I decided to get a second opinion and wandered over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling and asked for further opinions. One of the editors there prodded the article again - and it was removed again without comment. The viewpoint of folks who have weighed in on the Wikiproject suggest that any wrestler who hasn't been in the "big leagues" is not notable - so, here we are. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fine delete, but also look at the ACW & NWA Wisconsin pages. To begin, they are the same thing, so why have a page for each? Second, ACW & NWA Wisconsin run mostly Notheast Wisconsin. That would make them very un- notable as they are a very small player struggling to stay afloat. Also, the pages were created by people who admitted to working with & for the company. That brings up a vanity issue. So, when you delete this page, make sure you do the same to the pages of the company Sam Hayne played a very large role in making.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0 memes

Blatantly unnecessary page which consists rntirely of material that would be better off in Web 2.0, original research and a rather shakey definition of a neologism Artw 01:16, 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 delete. Mostly Rainy 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wootatrocity

Non-encyclopedic woot.com fancruft. Article was deproded. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I don't think anybody would have a real problem with a redirect...
Note Just had to share, the deprod reason saying it wasn't WP:NEO: Etymology: stemming from wootatross, analogy to Rime of The Ancient Mariner's albatross.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of student societies at the University of York

The first paragraph is already in the University article. Why does an encyclopaedia need a list of societies within a University? There is a good bit of text already in the Uni article on its societies so I would not suggest putting this list in there; it is of no interest to the outside world that they have a bridge club (I speak as a bridge player!) and if you are a student there you would go to their website not here for detailed information. Bridgeplayer 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion move to Student societies at the University of York and place details about funding, histories and achievements on there, hence getting rid of the listy nature and making more encyclopaedic. Ideas? Pluke 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing notable about a university or student union having societies. There's nothing particularly notable about this student union's societies. WP is not a tour guide for the world's students. Individual societies might merit articles - Oxford's athletics union, or whatever they call it, for instance - in light of "Chariots of Fire" (pun noted, but not intentional). Cain Mosni 20:31, 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 dotz, delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adcoach

Deprodded, despite the fact that it's blatant and disgusting advertising. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:20, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Progressionism

Was CSD'd as nocontext, but I think it does have some, therefore giving full AfD. [Check Google hits]; 0 total. Seems like totally NN philosophy to me, included just to promote itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Extra Information

Seems like an excuse to dump fancruft into WP. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:44, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Roe Boulevard, Newmarket Ontario Canada

Nonnotable street, if any article exists it should be about the person, but I couldn't find anything on Google about William Roe GrahameS 01:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. If there was, I would have suggested a merge. It doesn't matter if he's fictional. If a street is named after him, he's probably noteworthy enough regardless. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 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 merge everything not fluffy to Pharmaceutical companies --- Deville (Talk) 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical Companies (Developing World)

POV essay discussing Pharmaceutical Companies, but completely unencyclopedic. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not it is referenced thoroughly and there is no original work. Take a look at the Pharmaceutical Company page. Sandwich Eater 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not the concern. I know it is referenced and perhaps not original research. But that doesn't stop it from being an essay. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Pro-industry opinion piece; not encyclopaedic. Cain Mosni 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything verifiable to the Pharmaceutical companies article, which already has a section on controversies, after removing the POV problems. I note that Sandwich Eater has already duplicated one section there. A balanced article on ethics of clinical trials, discussing the Developing Countries issue doesn't currently seem to exist and would be interesting, but this article isn't a good place to start. Espresso Addict 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear how Ultimis can agree it is not original work but still an essay. I think a more focused article on ethics of clinical trials in developing countries is what I would really think would be intetresting and that there is plenty of secondary material out there to gather into a good encyclopedic article. I don't think it is sucha pro-industry opinion piece, and even if you disagree it won't stay imbalanced for long on wikipedia!! I did go ahead an move some of those bullets to the Pharm company page and could temporarily move merge this article with that page. But the encyclopedic entry for a pharmaceutical company is already contaminated with this topic, as are several other pages, like the Constant Gardner pages. A separate page referencing and summarizing the secondary sources on the background of this issue would be extremely valuable and that is what I have tried to start here. Sandwich Eater 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is a POV essay and right now I don't see much potential for expansion into an encyclopedic article. Merge of content to Pharmaceutical companies as per Espresso Addict is certainly an option. I just don't see much potential for a standalone article here.--Isotope23 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough Merge. Merge, but excise as much as possible, to rid this of so much of its fluff.-Kmaguir1 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No fork needed ... secondary sources can be placed in the original article. --Dennette 03:43, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southwick United F.C.

I don't get a single Ghit for 'Rimla Cola League' and it is not in the English football league system. A hopeless failure to meet WP:CORP - English men's football clubs competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system are considered inherently notable. and no independent notability unless those crumpets are very, very good! Delete. BlueValour 02:05, 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 keep, subjects of scholarly articles and books are very notable. --- Deville (Talk) 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuckin' and jivin'

del WP:NOT, not a dictionary, not a slang guide. Dubious notability of the phrase. Mukadderat 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm in Memphis, and like Cordesat, I've never come upon this.
This is not a dictionary term; it is a concept within African-American culture indicating a certain kind of bravado. It is not a current slang term; thus you probably haven't heard it used. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
"I haven't heard of it" is not a criterion for deletion. No one is familiar with every subject on this encyclopedia. Zagalejo 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article as it currently stands is little more than a dicdef. There ar no sources provided. If it is a part of American cultural history, this article does not appear to properly document it. -- Whpq 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this slightly different definition of "Shucking and jiving" in a an article available on JSTOR. It might be helpful in determining whether this page can be expanded beyond a dicdef.
It reads as follows: "Shucking, shucking it, shucking and jiving, S-ing, and J-ing are all terms that refer to the verbal performances of blacks when they interact with the Man, the establishment, or any authority figure. These terms describe the forms of speech and physical movements that are necessary to maintain a particular guise in a confrontation with an authority figure." ("Black Rhetorical Patterns and the Teaching of Composition", by Michael D. Linn. College Composition and Communication Vol. 26, No. 2. (May 1975), p 150).
Linn then gives an example, which is quoted from another source: "One black gang member was coming down the stairway from the club room with seven guns on him and encountered some policemen coming up the same stairs. If they stopped and frisked him, he and others would have been arrested. A paraphrase of his shuck follows: 'Man, I gotta get away from up there. There's gonna be some trouble and I don't want no part of it.' The shuck worked on the minds of the policemen. It anticipated their questions as to why he was leaving the clubroom and why he would be in such a hurry. He also gave them a reason for wanting to go up fast." (from Thomas Kochman, "Black American Speech Events and a Language Program for the Classroom". Functions of Language in the Classroom. ed. Courtney B. Cazden, et al. (New York: Teacher's College Press, 1972). p. 250.)
Personally, I think this subject has a lot of potential for expansion, as it seems to have sociological importance. There were at least 18 other references at JSTOR (excluding reviews of the book), and I would suspect that there are more sources available offline. So, what does everyone think? Zagalejo 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it violates beucoup WP:NOTs. --Dennette 03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to remind everyone that we're discussing the subject, not the article itself. The article itself is inadequate, and seems to be full of errors, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't worth including. And I still think we should include it.
We have plenty of evidence that the term is used on a wide scale; it's appeared in several scholarly articles and in the title of a major book; it's not some new slang term; and it has enough sociological importance that it surely can be expanded beyond a dicdef by someone who's knowledgable about it. Zagalejo 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up, to the best of my ability. Zagalejo 03:19, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowe: Fightin' Around The World

South Park fancruft, only appeared for like 2 minutes in one espisote, we can't list every single fictional thing that appeared in every TV show, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Merge what ever useful content somewhere, if there is anything and Delete Jaranda wat's sup 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree. It is a particularly humorous satire of Russell Crowe. Merge at the very least.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers

Highly incomplete list. No useful purpose not served by proper categorisation. Lots of red linked "composers" with no indication of notability. Cain Mosni 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • i am changing my vote to move to category:composers,then sub categories for each genre.
  • Move --speaking as an educator who just went to this page while looking for course materials, I think categories of composers are essential, but I agree that a comprehensive list of all composers is not possible. (Do I qualify? I wrote my college's fight song...) Truddick 04:04, 5 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 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin and Lacy

Prod tag placed by one party, removed by a second, and then reinserted via revert by a third person. Reason given for the prod tag was "NN company". No strong opinion from myself. Jonel | Speak 02:18, 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 Delete. --- Glen 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of aliens hidden in South Park

More South Park fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per VegaDark and Tobyk777. This is not indiscriminatory. I'd like to ask the people who use the term cruft (which is essentially a term covering multiple possible reasons) to be specific about the reasons to want to use. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Quite unnecessary and not at all encyclopedic. All of this is quite trivial information. Wickethewok 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... as much as I love South Park, I agree with Wickethewok... this is absolutely trivial and unnecessary. More importantly, it fails WP:V and WP:NOR and thus should be deleted.--Isotope23 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep It's easily verifiable -- just watch the episodes, they're all available on DVD and/or shown constantly on TV. However, while I've been curious about where all the aliens are (it's well-known that there are hidden aliens in most episodes), I'm not sure it warrants its own entry. HalJor 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, watching the episodes, copying down when/where an alien appears, and writing an article about it would constitute original research. An external source where someone has documented these appearances and published the work would need to be produced for this to be verified.--Isotope23 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: What!? How is watching a source and taking note of what you see original research? That's like saying that reading a novel and compiling a list of characters from it is original research. Rohirok 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, In my opinion that too would constitute original research because you would essentially be creating a primary source (i.e. a list of characters when one previously did not exist). Depending on your view on sources, this is at the very least research that draws on primary sources (if you take the view of a South Park episode as a primary source) and that is generally discouraged.--Isotope23 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is notable. Whats wrong with it?Plowright 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has 15 edits, mostly AFD. Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Article can easily be merged with the main South Park page. I don't understand why the creator of this article didn't put it under a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs)
At best maybe merge the alien hidden to the espisote it belongs, all this info clearly don't belong in the main South Park page. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There also people that is voting this as uncyclopedic, which I nominated as fancruft is another word for uncyclopedic, and also per WP:V and WP:OR which is valid Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 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 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regent International University

I'm not sure if this online unaccredited university is ever going to be able to pass notability standards. There are also no sources to corroborate this information in the article, making it unverifiable. Slightly spammy as well. ColourBurst 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment The Guardian recently mentioned it in an article on questionable honorary degrees, stating it will provide one for a minimum honorarium of $299. Added to article. Not sure if this mention is enough to create notability. Otherwise appears to be non-notable. --Shirahadasha 04:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we have a more or less long-standing practice of keeping articles on better-known diploma mills, or at least make them redirect to some other article, because they have a tendency to fly in under the radar anyway. It is very difficult to tell a stub on one of these mills apart from a stub on one of the thousands of obscure but legitimate colleges in the English-speaking world (and the U.S. in particular). Not spotting and editing it will risk legitimizing the school, as we often get Google hits for our Wikipedia articles on diploma mills on the first page, along with the "official" pages. For that same reason, it can be valuable consumer information if we have an article clearly stating that the school is unaccredited and linking to press coverage or official pages documenting this. As many of these individual online "universities" are just fronts for one and the same business, we should, whenever possible, try to consolidate these articles. User:Arbustoo did a lot of good work on doing that a few months back, see Saint Regis University for an article that treats several infamous diploma mills on one page, based on secondary sources showing a connection. up+l+and 08:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete company registered in the British Virgin Islands that advertises on eBay and seems to have no physical presence . Not even notable as a scam - 20 distinct Ghits. Dlyons493 Talk 08:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to cite adequate third party sources - a passing mention in the Guardian article just doesn't cut it. WilyD 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nickieee 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 20:46, 3 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 merge and redirect, not because I think any of this can be kept, but I find it conceivable that something in this list isn't OR and can be sourced. I didn't go through every single thing, but as it stands almost everything on this list is OR ("Oh, yeah, remeber that time in the episode about the cats when they went to get bottled water out of the refrigerator, there was a tulip on the windowsill and when they came back it was a rose! Oh, wait, you don't remember that? I do!" See the problem?). Unless there is a third-party source spelling these things out, it shouldn't be in WP at all. Like I said, though, instead of deleting it outright, I'll put it back into Friends so the history won't be lost, and anything recoverable can be recovered. --- Deville (Talk) 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of errors and inconsistencies in Friends

Honestly i think its a useful page, i dont see why u all say its made up Rank listcruft. Pretty much the definition of unencyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it was just removed from the Friends page, as detailed in the edit summary immediately before your restoration. It doesn't belong there or in its own article because it is a pile of unencyclopedic fancruft. Opabinia regalis 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you merge the individual list items into the episode pages? It seems that much of them have the same info duplicated already, so maybe it is more appropriate there. Alienmercy 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and not meant too strongly - however there is for example a list of such errors for MASH (tv) within the article (and no there should not be one for every long running show). How much is article length/readability an issue. I could be neutral. Nigel (Talk) 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep I think some people find this type of information useful (e.g. Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon), although I think it could be presented in a more encyclopedic way. At the very least, it should be merged somewhere else, but if others have problems with that, I don't mind it having its own article. Alienmercy 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Excessive list of trivia. Wickethewok 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - should be cleaned up. I would suggest that simple mistakes to do with hair and clothes should be moved elsewhere. --Nydas 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is unverified original research. It shouldn't even be merged unless it gets sourced.--Isotope23 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is unencyclopedic. Fans can compile such huge lists of trivia elsewhere. Rohirok 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unencyclopedia, this is not imdb, the reasons abound.-Kmaguir1 09:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent set by the deletion of the similar article regarding Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Crabapplecove 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge all of these into the Trivia sections of the appropriate episodes. (Too many of them have no back-links as it is.) --Dennette 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of this constitutes things like "the prop moved between shots" or "the wardrope department made a slight mistake". There are some notable major points - e.g. Ben seems to completely disappear in the last two series or Phoebe's various family members seem to get forgotten (e.g. she doesn't seem to tell her father that she knows Frank Jr.) which does make a difference given how much is often made of her unconventional upbringing but this is of a different order to what's listed here. And a list like this tends to fill up with individual observations from the shows. Furthermore there are too many "this may not be an error" type entries - e.g. the repeated claims that the first episode may not be canon. Timrollpickering 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All statistics point out how it wasn't the most followed sitcom or its finale had x-million less viewers than "this other event". But they forget that these statistics were for US only. In the international arena Friends are a fenomenon that shaped the 90' and 00'. WP should not delete easily material related to it.

Comment

If this page is to stay I think it needs some serious overhauling. Things like a prop moving between shots, a stagehand coming into view or even an actor's hair getting longer/shorter due to consecutive episodes being filmed apart really should go on the individual episode pages if anywhere and this page should be kept for major inconsistencies across the series (e.g. the way their ages and birthdays jump all over, the way some of Phoebe's family appear and disappear or that we see Chandler seemingly introduced to Rachel for the first time on three separate occasions). I'm also not sure the "this one-liner contradicts that one-liner" type errors are terribly noticable, or for that matter "this actor gets mentioned in one episode but plays a character later on" when the show itself shows there are people who are dead ringers for each other around (i.e. Ross and Russ). Timrollpickering 03:28, 9 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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Inglis

Google brings up a few hits for this person; apparently she has written some articles for nursing journals. She still appears to fail WP:BIO in my opinion, however. If the article is not deleted, would someone please, please rewrite it from scratch? It's totally inappropriate. IceCreamAntisocial 03:14, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandasia

Contested prod. Adspam for non-notable local business. Opabinia regalis 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as local business spam without sources. Oh yeah, I don't think being associated with Asian Boston is necessarily a good thing. ColourBurst 04:34, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Watch

Not notable enough (From an academic perspective, this article has NO significance AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY). It is a personal website and blog hosted by Robert Spencer. The blog is only in the top twenty thousand (precisely 20,653) most visited web sites on the internet (However, this is contested, as Ranking Dot Com locates the blog as ranked about 50,000). We do have personal websites by people who are much more notable and who have less opposing views than Spencer, but there is no wiki-page for their personal bolgs and websites. Reza1 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is also another option of merging Jihad Watch into the Spencer article. --Reza1 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Around 20,000 on alexa is pretty darn good for a blog. Googling "Jihad Watch" and "Spencer" gets you around 300,000 hits on Google. I would say if we are going to have any articles on blogs, this should be one of them. --Brianyoumans 05:27, 30
    • Well, yes, in that sense it is notable, but in an scholarly sense, it is actually not. Aside from these, the radicalist websites often make the news. This fact does not qualify them as good articles for Wikipedia. --Reza1 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)**Articles don't necessarily need to be scholarly. Just factual and referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, As an author stated in the discussion page, currently there is one single point of view, to a very suspicious blog which indicates that it is unquestionable and true. This idea will not be tolerated for other websites, e.g. JewWatch wiki entry i.e. stripping out the critisms and stating it is factual. Thus far, this article seems to be a mere attempt to gain extra hits to a Web Blog! Furthermore, The JewWatch website is NOT a blog, yet this is. I strongly feel this entry should be deleted. It hold zero significance other than stating there is a Blog out there, linking it, and once entering the unquestionable, uncritizable "Blog" being bombarded with blog enteries stating repulsive things about our fellow-man! (LewisRyder 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • KEEP. There are thousands of Wiki articles that are less "notable"; and if an editor has discovered that an Alexa ranking is obsolete, he should correct or eliminate the references, not recommend the entire article for deletion. Furthermore, neither JihadWatch or DhimmiWatch are Spencer's "personal websites"; and neither are designed like personal blogs.--Mike18xx 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having a Wikipedia entry for a blog is not an endorsement of the material on that blog by Wikipedia; it is merely an acknowledgement that the blog is notable. If there is a controversy over whether the blog contains truthful material, that might be good material to put into the article, but it is not a reason to not have an article. Brianyoumans 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, it is a personal blog, top 50000 or so is not notable!! Keeping this will only fuel others to place their blog on here, just to get more viewers. As noted wiki is fueling many hits to that blog, and moreover it holds nothing to a wiki user! If i create a blog which is in the top 100000 may i place it on wiki!!! (193.113.200.156 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete This entry is not up to the quality standards of others (see, for example, Engadget), and contains no noteworthy information. At a minimum, it should be merged with the Robert Spencer entry, as he runs the blog, and the blog contains a section on him, but nobody else in particular. --Yalto 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weblogs entries should be added sparingly. As of now, JihadWatch stands at the 21,370th most popular blog on the net.[4] That doesn't classify, by any standard, as notable enough to be added.

--Kitrus 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you are misunderstanding how Alexa works. It is the 21,370th most viewed web address, not blog. Sites above it include stuff like, say, ford.com (3,978). The site for the American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org, is ranked #32,110. 21,370 is a pretty amazing rank, actually, for something that is basically a personal site - it must get a LOT of traffic.
  • Delete - I forgot to vote myself. --Reza1 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At least delete the article in its current state, its become a revert war, which makes the article itself change in almost entirety many times over the course of a day or two. The article itself doesn't provide much, it basically just says that this site is out there, if that's all there is to say, then there's no point of it being on Wikipedia. The article is a mess and should be blown up and redone, or blown up and just mentioned on the Robert Spencer article. --Seventy-one 08:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most notable blogs on the Internet. If we're going to have articles on any blogs at all (and I know the orchestrators of the War on Blogs would love it if we didn't, but Timecop doesn't get to make the rules), this should be one of them. Also, Alexa only measures those users ignorant enough to use Internet Explorer or another spyware-susceptible browser. Those who actually secure their computers are not counted. Rogue 9 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kindly spare me of stating that it is notable. It is arguably in the top 50,000 websites (not using Alexa), shall all 50,000 websites be placed into Wikipedia encyclopedia? It would be a mockery if that happens. Someone has yet to state one benefit of this wiki blog entry. I have been racking my brains to think of any benefit to any researcher, academic etc. which resulted in me having to eat some painkillers as there was no feasible benefit of a relatively unknown blog being placed into an encyclopedia. Oh, and "googling" gives no information about notability, I have googled the word "The" and got 14.1 billion hits, but I will not be writing an article about "The" and linking it to my personal blog (which is in the top 100,000 but is of no use in an encyclopedia). (LewisRyder 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment We actually do have an article about "The." I don't see anything wrong with all of the top 50,000 websites or so having entries here. We've got 1.3M articles right now - 50,000 of them being websites doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Bibigon 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have articles on most of them already. We have articles on large corporations, important organizations, etc. - all of whom have busy sites. Brianyoumans 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This Wikipedia blog entry appears to be created by Jihadwatch.org members, specificaly Ann Crockett (user AnnCr ?) where upon the Jihadwatch.org blog states, "wiki was one of the first places I tried to reform" an Example the wiki "battle" outlined by the bloggers. Very interesting.... so much for the single point of view, or neutral point of view theory. The bloggers appear very intent in making sure only one single point of view is made clear, and that Jihadwatch gets as many hits as possible. See the revert wars for substantial evidence, and the rude and derogatory remarks mustered from the possible apparent bloggers. Moreover, so much for the "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"... and the above reasons for deleting a website blog log in an encyclopedia.
  • Delete Being an academic who has visited Wikipedia for several years researching social sciences, this Wikipedia entry holds no significance as an Encyclopedia entry. (RupertDoughlas 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I think the intense interest in this AFD, including the participation of so many new users, is itself evidence that the article is notable! :-) --Brianyoumans 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But we are wrting an "Encylopedia". --Reza1 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Brianyoumans et. al. the essence of your “compelling” arguments thus far encompasses; (1) ‘The blog is in the top 50,000 therefore should be advertised on Wikipedia.’ (2). ‘People have discerning views about an encyclopedia entry that simply points to a blog and according to Alexa feeds off the wikipedia link so it should be left as an entry.’ Anything further to add to this overwhelming barrage of points? (LewisRyder 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment I'm going to stop responding to this AFD - I think it is probably going to fail, and I have other interests on Wikipedia. I hope that those who are trying to "kill" this article will co-operate with others in making the article better, and cease trying to simply get rid of it. Personally, I haven't read Spencer at all, but if he is in fact an Islamophobe and is disseminating false information, then this is certainly something that should be discussed in the article. --Brianyoumans 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Brianyoumans, if you review the Wiki history on this article, users, such as Mike18xx and others will not 'allow' any discussion in the article about the blog giving out contentious information. Anything which has a neutral point of view, or more than single point of view will be reverted in haste. This leads to the question, why is this blog present in Wiki.(LewisRyder 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
          • Lewis? You're not telling the truth--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some examples; 22:18, 29 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (RV LewisRyder vandalism) ; 17:12, 24 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Lewis? Your "trick" of accusations of vandalism directed toward those who've largely written the topics you're accusing them of vandalizing is becoming tedious.) ; 08:15, 24 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Wikipedia is not a link-repository for ever bitch-moan-whine site that is unsatisfied with the traffic Google is sending it.) etc. Not being able to add any other point of view, or add neutrality leads to abusive comments and a swift revert. So, what is the point of this so called notable encyclopedic entry?? (LewisRyder 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
              • Citing selected past edit commentary instances of my reversions of your vandalism (and calling you for the counter-propaganda tactic of accusing original article writers of vandalism while engaging in it yourself) does not constitute defending your claim of "Anything which has a neutral point of view, or more than single point of view will be reverted in haste," since the article is already neutral-view in that it accurately described the ideological stance of its topic. Your argument, now, is essentially that the article should be deleted because other editors won't entertain the changes to it that you desire, and that's bad faith.--Mike18xx 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Anyone may examine my edits and edits from others that have been reverted and judge for themselves!! My argument is clear, the entry should be deleted because; 1. It is a single point of view. 2. It is not a neutral point of view. 3. It is a mere blog. 4. The entry appears to just be an advertisment link to the blog (check Alexa link-ins). Anyone care to add on to this endless list. (LewisRyder 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - If we are to add this blog, we'd have to add entries for the thousands (20,000) websites that are ahead of it in the Alexa ratings. This is clearly a case of partisan editors with axes to grind trying to flood Wikipedia with as much anti-Islam propaganda as possible. I'd be curious to know what proportion of Wikipedia's server space is dedicated to entries like this...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) This user also spammed. [5][6][7][8] JungleCat talk/contrib 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that it's disallowed. Nice investigative work, by the way.--Kitrus 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That pesky "anti-Islam progaganda"...tsk, tsk, tsk...--Mike18xx 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, Mike, it's not propaganda if you agree with it.--Kitrus 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entering "Robert Spencer" into Google generated 938,000 returns. Entering "Lewis Ryder" into Google generated only 1,400 returns.--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about Jihadwatch.org entry not the Robert Spencer entry. Entering Jihadwatch.org into google yields a pityfull 300,000 hits which is less than half of what my name yields. (LewisRyder 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
300,000 is "pityfull" and less than half of 1,400? ...OooooK...--Mike18xx 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to the "Keeps" I have been asking many times to the reasons behind the keep. As overviewed above, some authors do not wish to inform me, while others maintain it should be kept as the blog is ranked in the top 50,000 / or because Wiki fuels hits to the alleged discriminate blog. Moreover, the key editors for the blog entry are certain that it should only have a single point of view (see reverts), and that it should only be edited by apparent Jihadwatch website developed (e.g. AnnCr) to maintain a neutral point of view. Surely this is a farce?!!. Kindly provide some real reasons why this blog should merit a wiki entry. (LewisRyder 09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Some editors, if they were to suggest in Talk that their opponants were engaging in "farce", would have administrators landing on them like a ton of bricks for being "incivil". How is it that you manage to avoid this, Lewis?--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
answer Individual editors have given their reasons for their votes. --Amenra 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Reason? No given reason to be in an Encyclopedia. Some authors stated it should be revamped, others that it should remain as it fuels hits to the blog, or that being in the top 50,000 or so it is somehow famous. 50,000 is no way notable... it is like being on the 50,000 rich list, mostly unknowns. (LewisRyder 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
All of the reasons provided by the nominator are erroneous (e.g., JihadWatch is not Robert Spencer's "personal website", etc), and that in and of itself is enough to sustain a keep in this particular instance. There's also the general matter of yet another Islam-relating article coming under attack (first, there's random vandalism, then more organized campaigns, such as this one), with all of the usual suspects drawing up the familiar battle-lines.--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, although I never did state it was a "personal website", but thanks for the fabrication. So the reason for a "Keep" from you is because it is not a "personal website"? Are you serious!? And the single point of view, non-neutral point of view, the mere fact it is a unnotable blog, and that Jihadwatch "news editors" etc. have been instructed to make sure of this warrant a good entry into an Encyclopedia? (LewisRyder 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You are conflating yourself with the 'nominator for deletion (not you, but Reza1), in your earnest desire to accuse me of "fabrication". As for the rest, your contention that Jihad Watch is "unnotable" is simply laughable when the site is routinely mentioned in various media, as can be easily demonstrated by the most cursory of searches.--Mike18xx 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly inform me which media outlet speaks about Jihadwatch, they may speak about Mr. Spencer regarding his 'books' but I have not seen/heard any discuss a blog. Your premise that the blog is notable is still established around a online search engine which is preposterous as varying search engine will rank websites differently, nonetheless the number of hits a string has should be no basis to creating a encycolopedic entry. (LewisRyder 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You kindly should do your own homework, but I aim to please. ...not that it matters, however, since in this editor's opinion these are bad faith straw-clutchings to defend a bad faith nomination. I think we're just about done here.--Mike18xx 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a web search, not entries relating to Jihadwatch.org on Fox News I.e. "Google Yahoo! Search MSN SearchAsk Jeeves" as the site says. So, as I stated, kindly inform me which media outlet speaks about Jihadwatch. (LewisRyder 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm bored of these "moving goalpost" games.--Mike18xx 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose LewisRyder would like to explain these type edits lately. Doesn't look very productive. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:40, 5 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 merge and redirect, the two articles on Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are both pretty short and are closely related. If the article on Jihad Watch grows to be too large, they can be split again. --- Deville (Talk) 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi Watch

The address for the blog is http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ which is linked from the Jihad Watch. I have also nominated Jihad Watch for deletion here. My reasons: Not notable enough. It is a personal website and blog hosted by Robert Spencer. The blog is only in the top twenty thousand (precisely 20,653) most visited web sites on the internet. We do have personal websites by people who are much more notable and who have less opposing views than Spencer, but there is no wiki-page for their personal bolgs and websites. Reza1 04:24, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartLabz

Spam for a totally NN WP:CORP. [Check Google hits] (|-- UlTiMuS 04:30, 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 deleted as nonsense. bd2412 T 04:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Keitholocism

Non-notable self-proclaimed religion with one ghit [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:35, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Saylor

Notability appears suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 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 keep, seems to meet WP:WEB, but article needs massive, massive cleanup. --- Deville (Talk) 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaadz

Website that makes no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. Only references cited are pages on the site itself, and some blogs. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alexa ranking of 7,987; almost 2 million Ghits for "Zaadz". NawlinWiki 11:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Won Best Conscious Community award in VegNews Magazine's VegWebby Awards 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr2k (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Website featured in What is Enlightenment magazine: "From MySpace to OurWorld."[10]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvoltron (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. The reason we cite Google hits is because the number is indicative often of notability, IF the hits show notability. In this case, there are 2.4 million Ghits, BUT the hits are mostly the site's membership dutifully recited by Google's spiders (i.e., "smith@Zaadz"). I see a couple of articles cited above - I will note What Is Enlightenment magazine is a quarterly webzine, hum, maybe. But VegNews magazine's honor is not what I'd call a nationally-recognized one. There is a link to what appears to be a Wall Street Journal article, but the story only mentions Zaadz in passing (their CEO was at some meeting that was covered by WSJ, and the website gets no other mention). The website therefore fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles, nor shows nationally-known awards, nor is the content distributed by a site well-known and independent of the creators. Tychocat 04:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what tripe, per Tychocat. Three keep votes here, I don't know where this is coming from.-Kmaguir1 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The VfD nomination and some comments missed the fact that "What is Enlightenment" is a print publication celebrating a 15-year anniversary, and they highlighted the Zaadz article on their cover - hardly trivial. There are thousands of passionate people contributing to the Zaadz community, which I think means it merits serious attention. The Alexa score demonstrates much more interest than the vast majority of Internet sites, impressive after such a short existance. You can expect places like this to be underrepresented in the mainstream media, who see them as competitors on various levels. --NealMcB 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, remove sections which make it look like an advertisement. See Facebook for an example of a good SNS article. Ashibaka tock 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup per nealmcb and Ashibaka.--Crossmr 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What propagandizing crap! This is hucksterism from a hucksterising social website THAT PAYS BLOGGERS, like ~C4Chaos www.coolmel.com to product-place their website in his blog. It is not merely that what's written is non-objective fiction, it is vastly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. --172.193.254.8 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of their practicies, it doesn't dimiss the coverage and site rank. We're not here to pass judgement on a given subject, see WP:NPOV.--Crossmr 13:13, 5 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 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographic hypocoristics

Non-notable neologism. Not Wikipedia:patent nonsense, but probably a joke. Was prodded by me, but prod removed for unknown reason. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:06, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of TriStar Television

It's not so much that it's about logos, but Tristar Television was not exactly a prolific and long lasting division to warrant a page about their logos (which are basically shortened versions of their movie logos/sequences). It's just not really necessary, especially that there are already separate pages for Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television and Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television, and pages about the divisions of all 3 of the companies, which are basically merged now anyway. This just seems to be clutter. Renosecond 06:06, 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 keep. Per the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, the exceedingly weak deletion arguments and the strong support for keeping the article. Editors wishing to merge this to Hold On (Tim Armstrong song) should discuss this on the talk page. A merge may be a good idea for now, depending on the timescale of release. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Poet's Life

Album by someone from a notable band, but distributed only over Myspace. Dubious A7 candidate, so I decided to bring it here. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete fails WP:Music article was previously nom'ed for speedy, and deleted as non notable. Article is now reposted, and probably should have been speedy delete as reposted material. Article is blatant spam.TheRingess 06:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that speedy criteria only applies if the article went through a full AFD. If the article was deletion by speedy deletion or by proposed deletion it cannot be deleted as reposted material. In the future it would be better to tag it for the reason the article was speedied in the first place because that would have a betetr chance of success. --My old username 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I really don't understand how this article is blatant spam, other than the fact that it's about something one could conceivably purchase. Which would make an untold number of articles on albums, cars, hamburgers, etc. spam as well. Dina 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't understand how this fails WP:Music; please explain. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 06:45, 30 August 2006
  • I was the one who speedied this first, but the claim to A7 is not strong on second look. It's an album article, not mainly on the musician or group. The musician was (is?) from a notable band. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article adheres to notability outlines and in no way fails WP:Music. The repost was an accedent on my part and I take full respocibility. Tim Armstrong is a notable, and arguabley the most influencial musician in modern punk rock history. Although, the album is a virtual record, it is a record none the less. The album has a predetermined number of tracks, and possibly a predetermined order, which is as of yet unknown. This article's story, and the album is still unfolding, and it remains to be seen if the album will only be available online. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 02:45, 30 August 2006
  • Strong Keep for starters, the album will NOT be distributed only through MySpace, that's just where the information came from. Epitaph Records' website has an entry for the album, and you can download a song there. Joltman 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Separate album (assuming it is new/different material, not just a re-release) by a notable artist. Weak keep due to freeness and lack of secondary sources at the moment. Wickethewok 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please don't have this deleted. It's still an album being distributed by epitaph.com, not just through Myspace. This article is good and so is the first song off the album. Keep it.
  • Strong Keep -- Tim Armstrong and the bands he's been in Operation Ivy (band) Rancid Transplants and Dance Hall Crashers are all quite famous in the ska/punk scene. Op Ivy gets 965,000 Ghits and if you check [here] you'll see that information about this band is linked to from several articles about this period and its music. I may be showing my age here, but seriously -- Op Ivy and Rancid were huge in the late 80's early 90's alternative music scene. And, as others have stated, the "distributed over Myspace" in the nom was based on a misread. I think a new solo album by a member of several notable bands is in no danger of violating of WP:MUSIC. Dina 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or failing that merge. I think we can all agree that Tim Armstrong is notable, and bear in mind the following from WP:MUSIC: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." -Elmer Clark 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based solely on the notability of the performer if nothing else. A lot of artists are self-releasing music or doing so in "non-traditional" forms. Just because it's being issued solely through MySpace, or a personal website, or iTunes can no longer be used as criteria for disqualifying such releases, I'm afraid. It's 2006. 23skidoo 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reopened this debate because it did not meet the speedy keep criteria (still one delete vote). Kusma (討論) 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, album does not exist yet, WP:NOT a crystal ball. If you want, merge to the only song on the album that exists so far, and make a full article later. Kusma (討論) 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kusma. Merging to the song article works for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He's notable, album seems to be new songs coming out by the month, I don't think WP:NOT:crystal ball applies. --kingboyk 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the album itself isnt notable, even though the artist is. HawkerTyphoon 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could be better (e.g. sourced), but albums from notable artists are generally notable, and I do not want to delete simply because the album is being distributed through non-customary channels.-- danntm T C 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albums by Tim Armstrong are always noteworthy, not a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Tim Armstrong doing something off the wall again, what a surprise. He's never gotten scads of mainstream media coverage, but it would be nice to get some references outside Epitaph. Shell babelfish 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Speedy Keep as per all other keep votes. Cjmarsicano 01:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was dele7e. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7chan

Non-notable board, per original invalid CSD. [Check Google hits] Deleted twice, once for attack, once as nonsense. I abstain as this is an administrative nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Before this deletion, I had no idea "imageboards" exist. If in six months, or more, the "up and coming" site you speak of is going to be such a hit, then you could make it. --andrew 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a very good point almost no imageboard fit's in the criteria laid down by wikipedia, but this sight has had almost 100,000 posts in the 7 days it's been up

Lordvervex 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check my username - it wouldn't show up on my hands - Blood red sandman 15:26, 3 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 all to the Survivor shows that they were in -- Samir धर्म 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan McDevitt

Early elimination from a notable reality TV show and hasnt established notability since leaving the show. Realitycruft. I am also nominating 2 other contestants below for the same reasons.

--Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those articles at the moment, clearly met WP:BIO by establishing notability outside of Survivor. If a "contestant" or as the hard core fans say "star" disappeared off the public radar, and never heard of again, it would prove a strong case for a history deletion/redirect. One case as per [12], [13] and many others that were redirect/merged to their respective seasons --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 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 delete. Renata 22:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIT Brick City Singers

RIT Brick City Singers was nominated for deletion on 2005-01-13. The result of the discussion was not given by SimonP, who closed it. For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIT Brick City Singers/2005-01-13.

Oddly I seem to be falling back on this unfinished VfD. In any case, fails WP:MUSIC. Only record is self-produced. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Lies Over the Hill

It's unclear whether this book is a hoax or is just unverifiable. There are 17 Google hits, none of which establish that this book exists. There are no books of the title on sale at Amazon.com, and neither the supposed author nor the title appear in the Library of Congress catalog. Erechtheus 06:58, 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 redirect to Renaissance (demogroup). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cramer

Does not meet WP:BIO, possibly vanity. Could be replaced by a redirect to the demo group. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok, so I have redirected it and merged the bit of content. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep clear enough consensus to keep, also IMO sufficient media coverage to be notable. Computerjoe's talk 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse racing

It has 59 total hits on Goggle. That certainly isn't enough for this small sport to be on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 08:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it proves it's not just a recent fad. All the more reason to keep, especially in combination with the sources below. - Mgm|(talk) 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people had been racing horned toads on three continents for over six decades, wouldn't it be notable? I don't really understand your argument here. Zagalejo 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: no, it wouldn't be notable if people had been racing horned toads on three continents for over six decades.-Kmaguir1 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statements in the article aren't sourced at the moment, but the sport is verifiable. We're discussing the subject here, not the page as it currently exists. Mouse races have been around since the 1940s, and probably earlier, and they're played throughout the world. I have nontrivial newspaper and magazine sources to back that up.
Here are a few of the newspaper articles I found, in case no one believes me:
  • Glen Sparks. "IN THE GATES: ON YOUR MARK, GET SET, SQUEAK!". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. January 29, 2004. p. 1
  • Clare Garner. "Life in the fast lane 'is cruel to mice'". The Independent. December 27, 1997. p. 2.
  • "Mice for racing plan condemned". The Irish Times. December 27, 1997. p. 4.
  • Yvonne Martin. "Pub offers beer with a whisker chaser". The Press. July 17, 2001. pg. 1.
And there's more where that came from. Note that these are all from the last ten years.

Zagalejo 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Zagalejo has really cleaned this article up and I think most of the objections have been dealt with. I encourage anyone who voted delete to take another look. --Aranae 17:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Enterprise

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. This company fails WP:CORP and precedents indicate that this should also get the boot. Pascal.Tesson 08:35, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over the race of Ethiopians

There exists no such "controversy over the race of Ethiopians," as it does with that over Ancient Egyptians. The users who created and expanded this page are venturing into OR territory and creating a controversy where one does not exists (not to mention using incorrect information in doing so). If they want to include information on Ethiopian population genetics, there are already articles for that, namely People of Ethiopia and Demographics of Ethiopia, both of which are legitimate places for that information (and already do contain such information, at least the Demographics one). ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There may have been such a discussion among 19th century colonial scholars, but there is certainly no such controversy today (except probably among marginal racialists). Discussions regarding the race (even the term "race" is not very useful today) of Ethiopians was constituent to the now scientifically obsolete Hamitic myth. Disputes motivated by the fixation on race by certain Wikipedians mustn't be allowed to allude the existence of a general controversy.--Ezeu 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Talk about creating a non-issue for pov-pushing purposes! "Ethiopians" is not even the name of a race. Very poor scholarship here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This article is straight out of the 19th century. You don't have to be an anthropologist to know that this is full of obsolete uses of words like "race", "Negroid", and "Caucasoid". — MikeG (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Batmanand | Talk 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if such a historical controversy existed, it might merit a brief mention elsewhere, but the article as it stands is useless. Warofdreams talk 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is undeniably a bizarre article. As Codex Sinaiticus pointed above, there is no one Ethiopian race; Ethiopia is a known crazy-quilt of ethnicities, religions & other complications. It also fails to note other documented motivations for thinking that "Ethiopians" were Caucasoid -- the best example being the Italian defeat at the Battle of Adowa. (Many European & American journalists could not believe that a bunch of, er, foreigners could defeat a European army.) Lastly, this article misuses a Fair-use image, & its creator used 2 proven sockpuppets to further develop it; those details make it hard to assume good faith over this article. -- llywrch 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I find it ironic that Yom is the one who nominated this article to be deleted because it was his constant ranting and raving about a the controversy over Ethiopians on his talk page and elewhere that got me interested in the subject in the first place. A simple google search of Ethiopians and Caucasoid reveals a wealth of information on the topic. I created this article because I'm genuinely curious about whether Ethiopians are Caucasoid or not and was hoping to attract people who know more about the subject than I do to make contributions. Genetic journals in every major universities reveals dozens of major professors doing research on the race of Ethiopians, so if you do delete this article, you're doing so for personal reasons that have nothing to do with wikipedia's standards. There's also been marjor anthropological discoveries in Ethiopia that have revolutionized the field and have been covered very recently by CNN and major science magazines. Perhaps you could change the title to something more politically correct like "anthropology of Ethiopians" but racial issues concerning this one population are important enough to deserve their own article.--Whatdoyou 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I neither ranted nor raved on my talk age and elsewhere about a "controversy over the race of Ethiopians." My only discussions on the subject were when Cluckbang, who was relatively uninformed (thinking Ethiopians were the descendents of Sabaeans, which archaeology and genetics do not bear out), asked me about the matter on my talk page, whom I calmly answered. The studies on Ethiopians' genetic histories is not evidence of a controversy; you'll find many such studies on Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc. The reason why more studies exist on the population of Ethiopia than of some other Sub-Saharan African countries is because it was probably where modern human populations developed, and is therefore crucial in the study of genetics. Research into a topic does not a controversy make. "Anthropology of Ethiopians" would be a more appropriate title, but there are multiple diverse groups in Ethiopia, many of whom have yet to be studied; until the article becomes huge, there's no reason to split a genetic discussion from the already existing sections at People of Ethiopia or Demographics of Ethiopia. Note that this article is very clearly to support your own POV about Ethiopians, using dubious terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" instead of actual lineages (note that such balances are used by defining some lineages that arose in Ethiopia as "Caucasoid," so as to deny genetic influene from Sub-Saharan Africa in places like Greece and Southeastern Europe). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I just added a genetic tree by Cavalli-Sforza which shows quite clearly that Ethiopians are Black/Negroid/sub-Saharan (whatever term you prefer) though obviously others differ. I don't create articles to support any POV. I create articles because I have genuine interest in subjects and want to have a convenient resource that summarizes all the relevant data and is constantly being updated by those in the know. The reason why I feel this article is needed is because there's just too much genetic, craniofacial, and anthroplogical data to fit into articles like People/demographics of Ethiopia, since these articles are focused on broader issues than just race (i.e. culture, religion, etc). And I didn't create this article to create a controversy. The controversy title was simply modeled after the controversy over race of ancient Egyptians article. I found that title to be quite funny, and thought it would be even funnier if it was turned into a series. Change the title if you want, but is not possible to preserve an article entirely dedicated to the complex and massive body of literature concerning the race of Ethiopians? This dispute comes up over and over again in many articles and creates many edit wars which is why a comprehensive reference to the subject is needed--Whatdoyou 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article reads like a really bad 18th century geography work, with caucasoids and the like. Move on, people.-Kmaguir1 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it was a very real controversy, as many references can attest, and should be discussed in historical context. FairHair 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Modified only Delete revised by me Ngwe 04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (See comment below Ezeu's): (Original comment): FairHair is right that this topic deserves an historical article, provided that there is enough specific secondary literature to keep it from being original research. It should be an adjunct link to a main article on the history of racial thought, which is bound to be or to get large & result in spin-offs. The text would need to be junked and totally rewritten. Ideally the title should indicate that the controversy was historical. The introduction must state clearly that it is not a matter of serious contemporary controversy and that the racial ideas with which it was argued are now rejected by most scholars as incoherent and methodologically flawed. Otherwise teachers of African history & anthropology will have to waste additional hours undoing Wikipedia-derived misinformation (already a serious problem for African studies). New text should reflect not only historical context, as FairHair, says but restricted to explicating the historical ideas in context. The current article weirdly combines utterly outmoded racialist concepts with ideas that are treated seriously today by some human population biologists and physical anthropologists (though rejected or doubted by many others). This combination amounts to original if idiosyncratic research.Ngwe 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever there is to say about this supposed controversy can be mentioned in the People of Ethiopia article. A separate article is not warranted. The main problem with this article is that it is a fork created specifically to forward an agenda based on obsolete racialist POV. The title and the content alludes a dispute that does not exist, and is inherently missleading. It is easy to argue for an article to be kept, while suggesting that it be radically edited. The end result is often that no one actually radically edits the article, and when they try to, they meet strenuous opposition from the creators of the artice (who often fight hard to maintain the POV), with the result that the "original if idiosyncratic research" stays more or less as it is, and continues to spread disinformation. --Ezeu 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded by Ezeu's & Mark's comments on what will actually happen. The search engine point had not occurred to me. Ezeu, when I first tried to respond but ended up closing the edit window without saving, apparently, I called the article a self-parody, esp. the idea that one could define race by skin color as "black", or "negroid" (from Spanish for black) and then by use of other putative racial distinction criteria, end up in effect with the proposition that Ethiopians are black whites -- whoa dude! I do not think there is any current controversy. However, the historic intellectual contortions of racialists in the colonial era to try to deny or minimize the "blackness" of Africans whose achievements they counted admirable by their own ethnocentric standards ("Hamitic hypothesis" etc.) is a significant historical phenomenon that needs to be in Wikipedia. I suspect you are right about the forking of this article as it stands in suggesting spuriously that a controversy exists today, & agree that Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting such dicredited views in the present. Being new to Wikipedia, the distinction between such forking and the principle of creating new pages on sub-topics if a big topic gets too big is not always clear to me. So I accept what Mark says below about the way to approach a redefined historical topic. But I do think FairHair is right to point out that the historical phenomenon is a legitimate potential Wikipedia topic, provided the sources to which he/she refers are not all primary documents, though FairHair does not deal with the presentism of the current article. Ngwe 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I largely agree with Cclowe's argument above, but I do think the article as it is is irredeemable and should be deleted. If someone wants to create a different, well-sourced, and verifiable article on the notable historical controversy, he or she is free to do so, but let's not leave the present highly problematic article up any longer only to be picked up by Google and other content scrapers. There is enough misinformation in the world, let's actually try and delete some. — mark ✎ 19:02, 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 Speedy Keep. per WP:SNOW, I'm renaming this thoughJaranda wat's sup 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 500 home run hitters of all time

Please keep this page. I find the information on this page very useful! David


A great deal of hard work that has gone into this page; however, the page is useless. This information is readily available on any number of web sites and in any number of books. It does not add to the experience of wikipedia and it is annoying that it is has been placed on the see also section for so many baseball related pages. It is more the work of one or two people, rather than a true community page. Wolverinegod 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the risk of sounding counter-intuitive, keep per nom. The information is verifiable (per nom), and appears to be encyclopedic to a baseball ignoramus such as me. I'd be tempted to say that 500 is an astonishingly large number to have, but baseball fans seem to be pretty statistically-minded. The fact that the information is readily available elsewhere has nothing to do with anything, since that simply means that it's verifiable (if the info weren't readily available, I'd be thinking about nominating this). The fact that it's been placed all over the baseball pages is entirely beside the point too, as the nominator or anyone else is more than capable of removing it from places where it's not useful. The fact that it's "the work of one or two people" is also irrelevant, as not all articles here will ever be "true community pages". Additionally, if the information is readily available, it doesn't take more than one person to port it here. BigHaz 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable and encylcopedic. Remove inappropriate see also links. MLA 10:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but pare down on the OR element that is before you get to the actual listing. 205.157.110.11 11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something like this is the reason for Wikipedia. We're a collection of useful information. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well to further my point: just because an article "can" exist doesn't mean it "should". This article reports on something where there is no "criteria". What exactly is "useful" about this listing. Anyone who hits a home run can be added to the list, and therefor, there is no realistic control. Where as, in order to be listed in order to be named as a member of the 500 home run club or people to climb mt. everest, you have to meet a standard. Further to the point, this article would need to be referenced so often that it becomes pointless to attempt. See Wikipedia:No original research. Just because something is verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is), does not mean it needs to be included. Putting a link to the see also section is technically admissable because it is often placed on a players page. Wolverinegod 12:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article reports on something where there is no "criteria". — On the contrary, the criteria, per the article, seem pretty clear: Being one of the top 500 baseball players of all time, ranked by the number of home runs achieved.

      Anyone who hits a home run can be added to the list — False. Please read the article title.

      verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is) — You are now contradicting yourself. You stated in your nomination that "This information is readily available on any number of web sites and in any number of books.". Uncle G 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep verifiable, well written, encyclopaedic. While 500 may be a surprisingly high choice of cutoff, there's no point in excising information from an article just because it's surprisingly deep. WilyD 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as said above it is verifyable it just needs to be cleandup at the start. Tarret 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article is fantastic, frequently updated, and DOES NOT have an equivalent anywhere else on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.175.119 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30 13:19:21
  • Keep - But the list could probably be trimmed down from 500 to like 300 or something for the sake of readability and scope. I mean Al Martin and Derek Bell make this list. Isn't there a clause in WP:LIST that says, "No list may include Derek Bell in it"? No? There should be... Wickethewok 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily. I can understand the notion that the list should be pared down a bit, but I agree with WilyD pretty much wholeheartedly. We've already AFD'd (is that a word?) a list which purported to list the Top 1000 home run hitters (a list which I think I might actually be on, along with Steven Hawking), so there *is* a limit to what is realistically encyclopedic but this list doesn't meet that criteria. I say leave it as is, it's very well written. In the interest of full disclosure I am an occasional contributor to the page and have been adding links to the page from the subjects on the list. - RPIRED 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hardly listcruft, which is the only reason I can see to delete, so keep. Batmanand | Talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BigHaz. The list is factual and seems well-maintained. Could the beginning prose use a little cleaning up? Sure, but that's no reason to delete a solid, encyclopedic list. SliceNYC 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. Bigtop 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters; the "of all time" is superfluous, and the list seems geared to (exclusively) MLB hitters, because I didn't see Sadaharu Oh (868 professional career homers) or any other achievers outside of MLB such as the Japanese or any Latin American leagues, or any batter's school/little league accomplishments listed. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 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 Deleted - Author Requested deletion --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Family

This was originally put up for a speedy but there were objections so it's here. It reads too much like a geneaological record. And frankly, outside of the Napoleon connection, I don't see notability here. Woohookitty(meow) 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Family History OR. 205.157.110.11 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V as well as a host of other arguments. WilyD 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical index. Agent 86 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is all non-notable (being related to someone famous is not notable, this is actually quite common). --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty sure I tagged this {{db-group}}... Ryūlóng 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author and I have deleted my page on my own. You people are morons if you think being related to Napoleon is "common". There are only three families in the world who have that relation. I published this article to make knowlage avalible on an influental family that is not widely known. It holds a place in world history. Anyway you can stop voting of whatever your doing here because I have removed this article so go ahead and further delete it if you want I'll take my information somewere were people care about history.Vaio12 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not take offense. We just have rules as to what's notable or includable. We are not a collection of indiscriminate information. The problem with including a family like this is, as it has been said already, many are related to famous people. Almost everyone is related to someone famous. We can't include all of them. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have misinterprited the focus of my article. I didnt right about this family because they are related to someone " famous". I wrote about them becaues they are one of the wealthiest families in the world and one of the most powerful in this nation. Just recently they have been emerging into the society world and I thought it was a point of interest in who they are and were they come from. Yes they have relation to a historical figure but they also weald great influence in new england and around the country despite being relitivly unheard of on a large scale. That was the focus of my article. Just as you have pages here about the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Kennedys and other less wealthy but more well known families. I was tring to ad to the knowlage of these " Dynasty " families that are so secretive and isolated in this country. Vaio12 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote as the author I request that my article be deleted imediatly.Vaio12 01:55, 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 redirected to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, as it was in January. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUNETA (aeropagitica) 08:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDSA

Trademarked product name, no assertion of why it's notableNawlinWiki 11:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DG-SD 200 PVR

This is a mostly Finnish language user guide for a digital video recorder. Delete or transwiki. KFP 12:45, 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 delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BioErotica

Protologism, only 12 unique google hits on bioerotica, all coming from wikipedia or from the one article at globalsecurityreport.com, which has an alexa ranking of about 6 million. Doesn't meet WP:V. Note that the BBC news link in this article is not on this topic Xyzzyplugh 12:56, 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 A7 and G7 (per below). NawlinWiki 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin K. Smith

I would have gone with db-bio, but there are some claims of "critical acclaim". [Check Google hits] Google tends to disagree. Also, the included picture seems like good evidence that this is just an amateur wanting an article about himself. Fails WP:BIO therefore delete (|-- UlTiMuS 12:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Im 'Smith' and even I agree with the above user's statements. Mrcoolbeans
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jump (movie)

"Joe Jump" on google gets few hits, and no relevant ones. Therefore, this is either a hoax, or just plain crystal balling per WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 13:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Indiana Plane Crash

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash original nomination closed as merge. Talk:Indiana_University_Bloomington#2006_Plane_Crash_Merger - Destination article discussion is against merge. Not a notable plane crash, and WP:NOT a memorial. Delete. – Chacor 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per first AFD, and fact that the only sensible merger location is inappropriate: "transient current events have no business being part of an institution's article".--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. What happened was tragic, but does not appear to have affected the university or the Bloomington community, apart from those people who lost a loved one. -- Merope 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Recentism. Batmanand | Talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless the event’s identity is seared into the public memory in a way that ties the event directly to the name of the institution (such as the 1970 national guard shootings at Kent State), then a transient current event that happened in the rural countryside outside of a college town has no business being mentioned in the nearby-university’s article. The plane did not crash on campus nor have any other direct link to the institution other than killing five students. I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one other accident (e.g., horse-and-wagon mishap, car crash, construction accident) that also killed 5 IU students/employees within a certain radius of Bloomington at some point over the years since IU's founding in the 1820s and that other accident doesn't warrant its own article nor appear in the Indiana University Bloomington article. Recentism. Perhaps someone’s blog or personal website would be a better place to memorialize the 2006 Indiana Plane Crash tragedy outside of Wikipedia. If the editors of 2006 Indiana Plane Crash opt for that choice outside of Wikipedia, they should please remember to copy 2006 Indiana Plane Crash’s content while it still exists. —optikos 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Optikos and the original AFD. Wikipedia is not a memorial, either. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:00, 3 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 06:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kee Tov

Notability not established CobaltBlueTony 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Information in the article meets WP:V. Google search also shows more than a 1,000 hits as well. Moreover, it is notable in a local scale. This camp accomodates more than 700 Jewish childern in California. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge, but don't know where). There is recent precedent to avoid pages for specific camps, but that pages for groupings of camps (sponsored by a certain organization or having a certain affiliation) are reasonable if that information cannot comfortably fit in the pages of those sponsors/affiliations. That decision was for the regional and national overnight camps sponsored by the parent organization of the one for the page at hand here. Those camps have much broader geographic appeal, are of comparable size, and some have several thousand ghits. "Best Jewish Day Camp in the East Bay" feels like pretty slim notability. The page has very little that sounds specific/unique and interesting to this camp for anyone but those directly involved. It's heavy on the details to the point that it sounds like an ad or the camp's own website. Maybe we need a California Day-Camps or a URJ Day Camps page? DMacks 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Camps are usually businesses, so WP:CORP would apply, but this appears to be clearly part of a religious organization, so WP:ORG might apply instead. The article has no evidence or assertion of meeting either standard, so delete. GRBerry 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry. JoshuaZ 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- GRBerry 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN biz. Not even a school. No published works of any kind about this organization. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per User:DMacks and the precedent cited. We recently decided to have a single section on Reform camps in URJ#Camps rather than having articles on them individually. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to apply that precedent here. Although this camp is operated by a Reform congregation rather than URJ itself, there's no reason not to have another section in URJ#Camps on synagogue-operated Reform camps consistent with the format (which could also indicate the congregation operating them, location, size, other very brief information). If this camp is notable it can get a brief paragraph in addition to a mention in the list. --Shirahadasha 04:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Summer camps are generally not notable! Vegaswikian 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more evidence can be found to suppoert noteability -m Blood red sandman 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reset button technique

Seems like a fan-made neologism. No sources cited. Googling returns less than 30 unique results [15]. Most Ghits are mirrors or the occasional unrelated message board post. Delete as unverifiable and as original research. Wickethewok 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete [16] seems to mention it but its reliability is in question. The phenomenon is never called "reset button technique", just "reset button", but that article was already taken, so the creator must have used this as the alternate title. ColourBurst 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought about that too, but my understanding is that the two terms are different. Reboot is used to purge all continuity away (like Heroes Reborn in Marvel Comics). Reset Button only wipes away the continuity of a single episode or segment, like some science-fiction shows. ColourBurst 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term itself may turn out to be a neologism but the concept is clearly real enough, with a dozen or so examples already cited by the article. It looks to me like all it needs are some references (ie, web links could be found for the aforementioned examples of the concept), and possibly a better title, and it'd be fine. --Saucepan 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The phenomenon is real, and I have no doubt there are proper sources out there to document it. The writers/maintainers of this article ought to be given a chance to find them. Rohirok 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but rewrite and move. We should have an article about the "reset button" type of plots, but it shouldn't contain sentences like "Effective use of this device depends on the audience being unaware of the continuity status, or successful suspension of disbelief that continuity is or will be interrupted, and the eventual communication of the status of continuity to the audience." Chunks of this article are blatant essay/OR. I say keep for the topic, but don't keep the article as is. Also, it should probably be titled Reset button (plot) because it's not really a technique so much as a plot device. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to more appropriate name, and retain. This is a pretty widely used term, not only by fans but by critics. Sources should be sought to improve the quality, but that could be said for 90% of articles. I oppose merging with reboot (continuity) which is an entirely different concept. Espresso Addict 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think literary criticism can do better than 'reset button technique'. See no evidence of notability.-Kmaguir1 09:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More certifiable than verifiable, the article has only 30 google hits, is a dumbed down pseudo-literary critical term. And if notability and verifiability were not distinct to some degree, then the speck of dust on my F7 key could be placed on wikipedia as long as I had a couple of friends over at the house who had seen it.-Kmaguir1 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used term when discussing television series, comic books, and science fiction in particular. 23skidoo 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A certain Keep. This is a common enough term; used on 'TV Tropes' as standard, uncontested term, referred to in bestselling 'Planet Simpson', and while there are few hits for the string 'reset button technique', a significant proportion of the hits for 'reset button' refer to this phenomenon - it is simply that the word 'technique' is not normally applied. As an example, there are 43,600 google hits for ""reset button" trek", virtually all of which refer to the technique in the context of star trek, a regular offender. As for 'dumbed-down', such a label speaks of an artificial barrier between high culture and pop culture, which is quite against the principles of Wikipedia. I would counsel moving to reset button (narratology) or reset button (plot device). Matthew Platts 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Reset button" is very common to describe cheats made by shows to maintain episodic structure. I have heard it many times before seeing it on Wikipedia. The lack of Google results is probably from searching the whole term "reset button technique". Eleland 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a real phenomenon that is widely used Yuckfoo 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Me likee! 203.153.230.101 01:30, 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, if the other articles ever exist in the future, they can be placed here --- Deville (Talk) 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportfolio

Neologism. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 13:59, 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 delete; there not really even anything to merge which is not now contained in glassing --- Deville (Talk) 04:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle knife

Neologism; Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a how-to guide. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 14:07, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year 200X

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. While interviews are up, one is from what is essentially a blog and the Nintendo Power mention is most likely a passing mention, not a full article with the band as the subject. So in essence there's no notability asserted. ColourBurst 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I am a member of this band. When I put this page up, I had yet to read the band policies. I would like to note that the Nintendo Power article was, in fact, a full article with the band as the subject. It was accompanied by a full interview which was posted on NintendoPower.com. The band has also been the subject of other interviews, which I can post. We have an upcoming full-lenght album, which has yet to be recorded. However, I would be wrong not to admit that we still would not completely meet one of the criteria for addition. That being said, if this entry is deleted, I would wait until we did match a criterium before re-listing. MindPollution 7:39, 1 September 2006
  • Delete. Maybe when this album that the article says they are "currently writing and rehearsing" comes out, they'll become encyclopedicly notable (if it is successful). But right now that's not the case. Zaxem 05:22, 3 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 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebiz.Com Pvt Ltd

nn company. [[User:Ponu|pune ] 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete A8 by User:RHaworth. ColourBurst 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetMonastery Network Security (P) Ltd.

nn company. Ponu 14:02, 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 Speedily deleted a1, a3, only content was "More is comming soon". NawlinWiki 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSP.NET

nn website or company. Ponu 14:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light publishing

nn company. Ponu 14:05, 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 merge. I'm just cutting and pasting the whole article into the "defunct shows" section, because the instructions as to what to do require too much admin effort, which is why this AfD has been open for a week past the normal closing time. Anyone wants it another way, {{sofixit}}. Mangojuicetalk 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Past Programs Broadcast by Associated Broadcasting Company

WP:NOT. Ponu 14:07, 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 merge to SAGE KE. - Bobet 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouroboros (weblog)

Blog formed in August 2006, this month. Hard to believe it has become notable in such a short time. Punctured Bicycle 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no Alexa ranking (unsurprisingly). NawlinWiki 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please specify violation of Wikipedia terms of use, ideally with a link to the specific guideline. (I am the article originator; as I'm just getting started on Wikipedia, I'd like to avoid starting articles that are in any way inappropriate, so that's not a rhetorical request; your help and advice very much appreciated.) It's not clear from the deletion policy that either broad influence or Alexa rank of the subject is a criterion for maintenance of such an article. Subject is a website similar to & descended from a now-defunct website (SAGE KE) that had major influence within a specialized field and continues to have a Wikipedia entry. As with SAGE KE, Ouroboros enjoys wide readership within its field. Minor correction to nom: subject site originated in July 2006. Mycophage 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First look at WP:WEB, which is a guideline for web content. I suspect SAGE KE has a Wikipedia article because it was created by the AAAS, but I'm not sure. ColourBurst 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for this, that's just what I was looking for. I was unaware of this document when I initiated the article. Mycophage 03:54, 1 September 2006
    • Comment: If the facts are as you describe them here, Mycophage (that the weblog is a continuation of a notable website) then I'd suggest that the appropriate thing to do would be to merge the information from Ouroboros (weblog) to SAGE KE under an appropriate new section header, and then redirect the Ouroboros article to point to the SAGE KE article. Right now, assuming that the Ouroboros weblog is notable just because it's the successor to an existing notable website is crystal-balling, but it's certainly part of the history of that website. And if at some future point, the weblog can be said without hesitation to be notable in its own right, the information can be spun out from the website's article again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, having had a chance to look at the weblog in question, it seems to me that it's stretching the truth to say that it's "descended from" SAGE KE. From thefirst post it looks like this is a new weblog, created by someone who was not associated with SAGE KE but a reader of it. I'm afraid that so far there's no evidence to suggest that this is even a notable development in the history of SAGE KE. Weak delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge into SAGE KE. This does not merit an article until it establishes its own notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Smerge"? I'm unfamiliar with that term. What does it mean? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It is short for speedy merge. ColourBurst 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Smerge After reading the web content guidelines, it's clear to me that independent noteworthiness is important for a free-standing entry for a web site, so I would tend to agree. Or just delete; if the site ever does become as impactful as SAGE KE then some future inspired fan will re-initiate :-) Mycophage 03:56, 1 September 2006
  • Comment If the site originated in July 2006 then the article is factually inaccurate. Punctured Bicycle 06:06, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamparding

This article was prodded, but User:Dutchkop wrote a reason for keeping on the article (much like is sometimes seen with hangon). I'm interpreting this as a deprod attempt and listing it here. The original prod reason was 'protologism' (by User:RHaworth), and the 'deprod' reason was 'I feel that this reason is not a good reason to delete this creation on Wikipedia. As PROTOLOGISM is itself a new word (only created a month ago) and LAMPARDING has been referenced to a valid news media article and needs time and debate before it can be deleted.' (by User:Dutchkop). Procedural nomination, no vote. --ais523 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That argument is wrong on at least one point: "protologism" has been around for over a year and a half.

    The article purports to name a play in football. The football club magazine article that it cites is the sole association of this name with this specific play that appears to exist anywhere, and one of only 3 occurrences of this protologism that I can find. This is not something that has demonstrably entered the corpus of human knowledge. original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Second use reference of the word has been added and further examples of use of the word at the FIFA World Cup in 2006.
  • Delete. Neologism, only coined today apparently. Batmanand | Talk 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism with no citation of reliable sources about the term, as required by WP:NEO. GRBerry 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This article should be deleted on the basis of Protolgism as it has been in use since 16/10/04 as referenced in the article itself. The word "Lamparding" has been commmonly used by football fans of the Premiership since this point.The Grinch 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Liverpool FC website isn't really a fair source for Chelsea FC players.
  • Delete not enough sources, not high-enough quality sources. Melchoir 04:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The association between Lampard and scoring via deflections is well known throughout English football, it was only a matter of time before a term such as 'Lamparding' would come into common 'footie' parlance. Also the use of the players name in such an instance has precedence in such cases e.g. The Ossie Ardiles flick or the Cruyff turn. Gerrardsitchyear 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The term now has a second reference point [19] along with a second (and less demeaning meaning) "thinking outside the box" freddies_dead

Do not delete: A person is entitled to his thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.174.124 (talk) .

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe de Oliveira

Does not meet WP:V Nv8200p talk 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A google search for "Felipe de Oliveira" and the word skate returns 157 results. Only one of these (the third result down) appears to be relevant. It contains very little information about Oliveira. Google news shows no results. While this one sentence article is verifiable through this single relevant source, I am of the strong impression that Oliveira is not notable per WP:BIO. Srose (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable...insufficiently sourced. Anlace 22:20, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Akiyama (programmer)

No inidication of notability, simply being a game programmer doesn't merit an entry — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Palffy 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He certainly worked on some massively notable games, but other than that there doesn't seem to be much more than can be (verifiably) said. It's a little tricky googling him since there's a wrestler of the same name, but "Jun Akiyama" +squaresoft brings 183 unique hits, and all the ones I checked were production credits lists for various games. Final Fantasy is an enormous and dedicated fandom, and every minute element of the series has been carefully detailed and examined... thus, the fact that no substantial information about Jun Akiyama seems to exist suggests that he's outside the interest level of even the obsessive fans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May merit a mention in another article, but does not meet WP:BIO as currently written. - Wickning1 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't logged in.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paxtakor Toshkent

Improper spelling of the club name and one with the correct spelling already exists (see FC Pakhtakor Tashkent). Palffy 14:38, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-Chief (novel)

Non-notable book, probably a vanity book, ZERO Google hits — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Google hits... Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I have no proof, I think this article is a fake. You get like 6 hits if you Google this guy's name, and the book generates none. It could be non-notable, but most books generate at least a good deal of hits. --Nishkid64 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author yields 6 Ghits none of which belong to a publisher. Book isn't on Amazon or any other online bookstore. A worldwide bookfinder4u.com search for out of print books yields a poetry collection by an author with the same name. No mention of this book at all. - Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I should have mentioned that it was never published in English and probably will not be. The Russian name for the book is Главнокомандующий (Glavnokomanduyuschiy), which in English means "Commander-in-Chief". The writer's name in Russian is Николай Гуданец. Here is a website about the book: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/157967/. It is in Russian, but you can use Babelfish or some other translator to try to read it (won't be perfect, but at least it's something). User:ChronoLegion 31 August 2006
    • Still Delete: Well, it might be something for the Russian Wikipedia, but not this one. We can't read Russian (well, at least I can't) and until we can verify it, I say it should go. Just my opinion, of course. But if the book was successful enough, it'd make a splash in the media (and be translated into other languages), which it hasn't. I can't think that this is but a small, self-published book by a fan of the game. If it does survive this voting, the information that it is only in Russian should be added to the article (you can still edit the article while it's being voted on, just don't remove the deletion notice). — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For everyone's reference, here is the "translated" description of the text (if you know Russian, please feel free to tidy it up):
"Aliens appeared on the Earth suddenly. They did not start any negotiations, they offered no terms, they simply converted our planet into their hunting reservation, in which the the game are innocent people. Certainly, humanity did not want to be subdued to this lot. Only one person can command the defense of this planet - Russian General Berezin. The commander-in-chief. But even he has trouble figuring out where the main enemy is hiding... In the novel, written in the best traditions of science fiction, Nikolai Gudanets succeeded with luster in showing his inherent craftsmanship and fantasy."
    • The book sold 13000 copies (ISBN 5-04-088141-X). While this is by far not a bestseller, I seriously doubt the writer simply wanted to write fan fiction. As mentioned previously, the novel is loosely based on the game. He simply decided to borrow a few elements from the game (e.g. Elerium, hovertanks, plasma vs. lasers). Besides that, the story is quite original. The reason it is probably not translated into English is because they may have wanted to avoid any possible lawsuits from whoever owns the X-Com brand. User:ChronoLegion 31 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tillmann

Apparent hoax. See article talk for research and reasoning. Creating user notified. studerby 14:56, 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 keep --- Deville (Talk) 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce

I prodded this article as short, non-notable and not likely to be expanded. But then it got deprodded with the claim we need note that we normally keep all colleges and universities recorded. Im not going to get into that argument but if thats the basis for keeping this article then there should be twice as many articles here on WP then there actually is! Basically the article is tiny and fairly useless as it simply lists the name of the college and location - something that is easily taken care of in a list of such colleges (someything I personally would approve); here it is just taking up space. As to expanding it? Well the college website and various google results give no info on it's history, scale or size, rather it is a lot of POV advertising for next years courses - good for the college site but no good for us. I am all in favour of recording the existence of colleges like this but in this form - as loads of short useless articles - it is very clunky, I doubt many people will find this. Instead there should be a list of all these colleges (with the notable ones getting their own articles) and if someone does that great! For now I really feel this is article is uneeded and should be deleted Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – It is a college of teritary education, and that by itself makes it notable. School notability guideline. It's also listed in by the University Grant Commission [20] which accredits colleges and universities in India. A cleanup or stub notice is not sufficient grounds for deletion. And why is the article unneeded? Having a cleanup tag instead of a getting it deleted will attract more people to improve on the page. We're aren't running out of space that we should delete stuff as the nom claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp. Batmanand | Talk 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 3rd level is intrinsically notable Dlyons493 Talk 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment out of interest (and in no way a dig at all your opinions) but how is listing the name and address (essentially) of a college like this in a seperate article is to me pretty pointless. I am not against stubs they are highly useful but to expand this requires someone with first hand local knowledge and sources - I cant do it over the net (or I would have instead of proding it in the first place). SO how is this article useful to the encylopedia. The only use it has is for someone looking for colleges in that region of India and even then they would have to look through the categories to find it - how many people do that! It wont appear in a search for something like colleges in india. Instead for now whay cant its name and location just reside in List of universities in India until the article can be created with some meaningful content. At the moment it is simply a dead end... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, like many stubs, it's not all that valuable. But that's not a criterion for deletion. If you're making lumber, you don't smash all your acorns because they can't be used to build coffee tables ... WilyD 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp. _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge This is a college within the University of Delhi. This makes it a portion of a university. As it has no meaningful content, in my eyes, it can just be smerged to University of Delhi#Colleges under the University of Delhi. That may someday get big enough to need sub-articles, but right now it is predominantly a collection of redlinks. GRBerry 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging is not the solution. You must be aware that an article of this nature would attract contributors are causal anon contributors. By deleting the page (based on lack of information), you are actually preventing them from recreating an article. By leaving it in a 'cleanup' state, you're inviting them to improve the page. I also smell a systemic bias here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias? Come again? You mean negatively against the article? hmmm. I do sort of see where your coming from now :D Although I still dont see what meaningful content can be got from this article even if it is added to. I see your point about casual contribuotrs and I also agree (hving looked again at that list page) that merging is a worse option :D. I still think that this would be better under a general article about the dehli colleges. There are a few good articles there, Delhi College of Engineering foir instance, but that is a much larger (from what I can gather from vaious sites - mostly the colleges sites) and has been running longer. I cannot find any info about the history or makeup of the commerce college at all! IMO the they should all get a section on a page called Colleges under the university of Dehli with the smaller colleges (such as this) just getting a section of those few paragraphs and the larger ones getting a short section and a link to a main article about it. In that case leaving this current page as a redirect so people know it is there would be a good option!!!!
    Yes, a little negatively biased against the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some additional information on how to prevent this. At this moment, extra meaningful content may not be present, but does it mean that it can't exist as a standalone article? There could be many reasons why GSCoC attracts less attention here than Delhi College of Engineering. Some possible answers to this are: 1. What are the number of contributors from Delhi who can expand on this? 2. What about the nature of contributions coming from these users? There may be a few thousands, but they need not contribute to the educational domain or their alma maters. (I have never contributed to mine) They may perhaps focus on topics as diverse as chess, cryptography, Islamic architecture, or oceans. 2. Assuming that a former or present student/staff of the college has contributed to the article, the question to be asked is: What is the level of tech savyness from the college? Most contributions in wikipedia come from people who have 24x7 access to the internet. Thus, in many places across the world, engineering colleges are likely to produce more wikieditors than a humanities-oriented college (something like this is mentioned in WP:CSB). Lastly, I'm not sure why it is called for merging the article into the university article. Many universities in metropolitan cities in India have several hundred colleges affiliated to them which actually take care of enrollment. The function of the university in this case is to set the syllabus, exam paper, and award the degree. The college does the rest of the work: enrollment, lower level paper correction, teaching, fees etc. This may not be the case in many parts of the world, so that's why I have raised the suspicion of being a little systemic biased. And Tmorton166, it's ok to vacillate, that is a natural process during a discussion. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was the first to suggest merge, I feel I should chime in. I hope realizing that I also removed the prod will address some of the concern about bias. I do think that the article is currently of poor quality; here [21] is the form it was in when I deprodded - it was a sub-stub then. As now slightly expanded, it might rise to the stub level. But there isn't anything there that couldn't work in a table with columns like degrees, founded, student size, staff size, etc... That the college is currently adding a building isn't really encyclopedic content; given the way India's economy has been going I expect most business and technology schools are expanding. To contrast the article the business school at my alma-mater, and one that I can see part of the campus of if I walk to the window, look at MIT Sloan School of Management. That is a very good college article, which I'd never bothered to look at before writing this comment. If you go to the university article Massachusetts Institute of Technology#MIT schools, you'll see that only 2 of 6 schools have an article, as well as 3 of 30 departments. (I don't know which is the better comparison.) The merge I proposed, if the merged target carried out, would leave the various colleges of the University of Delhi with more comprehensive coverage than the schools of the university that is both closest to me and my alma-mater. Systemic bias isn't the issue, an article that isn't worth keeping is the issue. GRBerry 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it doesnt hapen like that in the UK, but I did get the gist of that from the article. I would refute that I have systematic bias. I regularly write for Wikinews (as an IP for several months and as a username for the last week) averaging around 2 articles a day on topics across the world- systematic bias is something I have learned to avoid from that :D :D I still dont feel this college can have alot of notable content for the moment. Perhaps deleting it is a tad strong but I do like the idea of a page (seperate from the university page itself) with all the colleges getting a short subsection. Then the college names redirectin to that. Of course the colleges with already larger article could get their own page and just short 'intro' on the lists page. The name Colleges under the university of Dehli is really just an identifier and a way to group them all together. That way we get more meaningful content in one place (what oif someone wants to compare colleges for example) with the ability to fork any information away from the 'main article' if it becomes of meaningful length. I realise this isn't technically normal policy but I think it would make it all look cleaner and friendlier to someone who is here to read WP as an Encyclopedia (something i thin k us regualtr editors dont consider often enough!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending adding of facts/sources Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp -- Lost(talk) 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Tertiary institution. Piccadilly 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per GRBerry. Hornplease 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Then anyone can expand or merge as needed. --Usgnus 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --- Deville (Talk) 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Leep

Comment to whoever closes this: nominator (CEIF) and one voter (WEVZ) are blocked for being socks of Spotteddogsdotorg --CFIF ☎ 12:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article does not contain enough biographical info about Roy Leap. Thus the article MUST be expanded with valid information, or else it will go in the wikitrash. Wslupecki 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Article does not assert notablily of subject other than saying "Leep was well known in the Tampa Bay area" and that is it, other than a mention that he was weatherman for a TV station there, something that isn't all that notable. If he played a part in the history of the television station, a few lines on the WTVT page are due him, but he is not worthy of his own article. CEIF © 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge Yet another unencylopedic article about a TV weatherman from CFIF. The article doesn't establish the person's notablity and a Google search reveals most of the links are to the TV station's website or some obsessive fan sites about WTVT's good old days. WEVZ 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article says he's notable in Tampa Bay, but being notable in one city is not the same as being notable nationwide. Only ~500 hits on Google, as well. --Nishkid64 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the TV station article, if there is one. If not, Delete. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The TV station article does not have a separate biography section on all of its past and present employees. There's just a section with names of former TV station personalities. --Nishkid64 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously not a notable person. There is more to the world than the sleepy American backwater of Tampa, Florida, and that greater world knows or cares little about this little forecasting peon of a television weather presenter. It isn't like he is Michael Fish. Leep doesn't even seem to have done anything of note, unlike Shefali Oza. This article should take a flying 'leep' into deletion. Lost Knob 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn`t done anything of note my ass....his weather team had the first radar used for weather..not something Shefali Oza did. Tampa, Florida is not a sleepy american backwater, but as usual, you troll and do absolutely no research. --CFIF ☎ 13:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General ATM

Looks essentially like advertising to me. PrimroseGuy 15:13, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballrush

WP:NOT for things made up on the school playground; author removed prod tag without improving article. NawlinWiki 15:23, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elegal (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page serves no purpose, as there is nothing to disambiguate between. Wikipedia has no articles on any of the topics listed. Instead, this contains links to various webpages which use the word Elegal. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Xyzzyplugh 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, looking at the history of this thing (it started as Elegal, and contained nothing much but a link to a blog), this was created purely to advertise a non-notable blog. --Xyzzyplugh 15:35, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Zizmor

Not notable. Only claim to fame are ads in the New York City Subway. CEIF © 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Looking beyond the subway advertisements, he wrote a few books and seemed to be known well enough to have 4,000+ ghits. Zephyr2k 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to that. According to his website he was featured in Harper's Bazaar and The New Yorker, both very notable magazines and likely to be verifiable from a more independant source. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insipidly weak Keep. Despite his books and his advertisements, he achieves remarkably low score of 305 unique out of 4140Ghits. The Gothamist described him as "the only dermatologist New Yorkers know by name if only because of his subway ads". Does appear sufficient to pas WP:BIO for name recognition in the nation's financial centre. Although he has written a number of books, many have no rank per Amazon. Those which are, however, do not even tickle the 2 millionth mark. His website has no Alexa rank. He may have achieved greater notoriety by having been charged with fraud, and having also been fined and put on probation for lack of due care. Ohconfucius 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Among other thngs, he was featured in a PBS documentary about quirky people in New York, plus I see his ugly mug on the IRT every day. TV Newser 13:22, 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 delete, simply because noone can find any sources even asserting this person exists. I looked myself and I can't seem to find anything that isn't WP mirrors. No prejudice against recreation if sources eventually appear. --- Deville (Talk) 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaranalloor Mani

Fails WP:BIO and WP:V --Nonpareility 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD from 30 August 2006 has been relisted to achieve consensus. Please add further comments below. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7 page was created by a nomination with history open. – Avi 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day - History

Was prodded and removed. Possible hoax, seemingly not notable, is this something enyclopedic? Looks more like a back-door advertising gimmick Avi 16:01, 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, CSD:A6 attack page. – Avi 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Kesting

Complete rubbish Alex (talk here) 16:03, 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 Keep. I don't like "Sweetest Day" either, though. DS 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day

Was prodded and removed. Possible hoax, seemingly not notable, is this something enyclopedic? Looks more like a back-door advertising gimmick Avi 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A google seach returns over a half million results. Many of these are reliable, albeit dedicated solely to romantic topics. I once sent a Sweetest Day card. It's a "Hallmark holiday" but in midwestern states it does bring in a lot of revenue in for flower, candy and card shops. I'd say that makes it notable, if only for the economic benefits for certain industries. It may also be notable for the controversy surrounding it. I wouldn't oppose a merge into Hallmark holiday. Srose (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of sources on this, it's apparently a minor holiday being pushed by various greeting card and candy companies. --Xyzzyplugh 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the hoax tag to the article because the Herbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of Sweetest Day is a hoax in my opinion. Primary source information from The Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper published October 8th, 1921 and October 8th, 1922 shows a very different beginning to the holiday. Here is a more factual account of how Sweetest Day began: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612 . (I realize that this version needs further editing/removal of caps/formatting) I do not believe the category of Sweetest Day should be deleted; it should just be reported for what it is: an 85-year-old hoax. Miracleimpulse 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I agree with your hoax tag. There is a difference between "hoax" and "popular mythology". The popular mythology of the day is that Kingston created it as day to honor orphans and shut-ins... and that version of events has been widely reported. This should be in the article (see WP:V verifiability not truth). If there is an alternate version of events that can be sourced (i.e. the Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper article, this could be included as well as an alternate, sourced, version of events. The article space is big enough for both versions without making any judgements as to which is true.--Isotope23 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:V and yes... this is real. It's a "second Valentine's Day in the fall" celebrated in 4 midwestern states, and it is fairly prevalent there (as are the allegations that this is a "Hallmark Holiday"). Midwesterners are strange folk.--Isotope23 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being from Illinois, I can tell you that Sweetest Day was never heard of before about 1989 when Hallmark began marketing Sweetest Day cards here. Miracleimpulse 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweetest Day is documented in Maud Lavin, ed. (2004-10-04). The Business of Holidays. Monacelli. ISBN 1580931502., in Scott C. Martin (1997). "Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays". Journal of Social History. 31. (which describes it as "a ploy by the confection industry" as a reincarnation of Candy Day), and in Bennett Madison and James Dignan (2002-12-28). I Hate Valentine's Day. Simon Spotlight Entertainment. ISBN 0689873727. (which says that "Luckily, Sweetest Day has failed to attain the global stranglehold of the abhorrent Valentine's Day."). The main problem with this page is an accuracy dispute. Deletion is not the means for solving that. Keep. Uncle G 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a (semi) real holiday, albeit only in the Midwest. There are usually displays in Hallmark stores and radio ads for a week or two before Sweetest Day. This is where I first heard of it. --Transfinite 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having the article (esp. as it stands now) is not advertising for the candy and card industries. NawlinWiki 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've lived in 3 of the 4 states listed in the article, and I can attest to the fact that this is a real phenomenon (I hesitate to call it a "holiday," as it is a sick invention of the flower, candy and card industries--then again so are much of the practicies in the modern versions of Halloween, Valentine's Day and Christmas). It's a real fake holiday, so to speak. Rohirok 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an advertising gimmick, but then so are all the other Hallmark holidays that have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I live in Wisconsin, and i have accually celebrated this day. It is an emerging holiday here in the mid-wast, that seems to be getting more and more popular by the year. I've even seen the Holiday mentioned on calenders distributed widely through the US. The accuracy of this article, however, is debatable.
  • Keep I work at the Vermont Teddy Bear Company for a couple of holidays a year. Sweetest Day, while not their largest holiday, is at least big enough to hire on extra part time help to the tune of about 50-100 extra bodies. So it's known and has effects far outside just Wisconsin. Dismas|(talk) 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a nauseatingly successful Hallmark holiday here in the Midwest, and eminently verifiable. --dtony 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, it's a holiday is it? Is it religious? Nope. Is it official? Nope. Is it notable apart from that among a wide swatch of the population (Hallowe'en, Valentine's)???? Nope. NN.-Kmaguir1 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is demonstrably notable because it has been noted, by people independent of its creators (whomever one asserts them to be): 2 books and a journal article. See above. Uncle G 08:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, show me some wiki guidelines on holidays which say that a non-religious, non-official, non-notable holiday, and I mean this strictly--not just what has been mentioned--should be included. I wouldn't even have problems including fictional holidays, like "Festivus", from Seinfeld which I'm sure is on wikipedia, because that's notable, but its notability stems from the fact it was on Seinfeld, not from the fact it's a real holiday. I take the position that holidays, real holidays, not just those invented, as this one is, by corporations and without involvement from the people, at a religious or state level, must include celebration or commemoration--I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. If it were fictional, it'd be notable as a joke. But as real, it's about as notable as "Win a Hawaiian getaway week". A few pop culture references do not a holiday make--they may make something else. But as long as it's an entry whose purpose is presenting a holiday, delete. If they want to call it other than a holiday, they can add it back.-Kmaguir1 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Official?? Is there a governing body that I'm not aware of that presides over holidays? Dismas|(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take the position that holidays [...] must include celebration or commemoration — I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. — Then please read the article. It actually tells you how this holiday is celebrated or commemorated.

          A few pop culture references [...] — There are no pop culture references in the article.

          real holidays, not just those invented — Most of the holidays that you categorize as "real" were in fact invented. Many religious holidays, which you accept, were invented, for examples. They were just invented longer ago than 1921. All secular holidays, such as Arbor Day and Labor Day, are invented. Your espoused criterion that holidays must be "real" and not "invented" is an entirely faulty one. Your actual criterion appears to be who the inventor of the holiday is. You're happy to accept holidays invented by churches, legislatures, unions, and television programme scriptwriters, but not holidays invented by greetings cards and gift companies. That's a highly subjective judgement, and not a particularly consistent one (given the inclusions of scriptwriters and unions). Notability is not subjective. It is a failure of our duty as encyclopaedists to exclude things from Wikipedia that we personally don't like, or think shouldn't exist. As encyclopaedists, we should be looking at what the sources say. The sources discuss this holiday. Uncle G 10:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable and verified. Batmanand | Talk 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holiday is celebrated in Ohio. My parents say it was created by Hallmark to sell more cards. IS verifiable holiday.Trevor 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It isn't really "notable" or important, and I understand why many would just as soon not give it more publicity. Still, it exists as fakelore and a marketing phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed in Chase's Calendar of Events, a standard reference work on holidays and observances. Gamaliel 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists and is advertised plenty, I always hear about it that time of year. Nate 01:25, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

goaste

Non-notable website, doesn't meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking of 4,000,000+, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet WP:V Xyzzyplugh 16:15, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Minds: The Michael Enslow Project

An ad for a non-notable book. A "cult following" is claimed, yet the title receives only 5 ghits - four Wiki related and one ad. Lesser Minds: The Michael Enslow Project is apparently the only title published by Dancing Man Productions, a company with no website. A press release posted at www.transworld.com directs those interested to the author's website and email address. Victoriagirl 16:31, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving dimensions theory

Violates WP:OR, a google search reveals that "moving dimensions theory" is basically a neologism created by some physics cranks with no real, academic backing Batmanand | Talk 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For reference, here is a previous AfD. --209.171.52.224 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR as above, not to mention a direct cut and paste from http://www.gatago.com/sci/physics/2886563.html, and it sure smells a lot like bollocks Akradecki 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually the physicist who is proposing MDT is quite accomplished. Above an editor claims that MDT "smells a lot like bollocks." This is a highly qualitative opinion. MDT should be judged by its merits with arguments for or against based in logic and reason. I find no fault with MDT--in fact it succeeds where ST & LQG have failed. It presents an underlying physical model for QM & SR, based in logic and reason, verified experimentally. String theory has been shown to be a complete hoax, and yet it fills wikipedia with pages upon pages. ST should be deleted before MDT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Commment. (Having just reformatted your comment). You may want to read Wikipedia:Original research and explain to us why this page does not violate it. Batmanand | Talk 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a place to judge anything. It is a place to summarize information on subjects based on references to reliable 3rd party sources. WP is not a place for advancing original research or arguments for one theory or another. The 2 main problems with this article is 1) it does not cite its sources in an academically accepted manner 2) it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Theories, when not cited properly, can smell a lot like Bollocks, hence the need for careful citation!! Akradecki 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is not verified and I don't see any reliable sources for this. It seems to exist largely on forums.--Isotope23 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who did Einstein cite in his original paper on Relativity? String Theory has thousands of citations, and yet it is "not even wrong." Mobs and group-think does not a theory make. Truth and Beauty make a theory, and that is what MDT has. Although ST is funded by billions upon billions, MDT rocks the world with its simple postulate. Having said this, I understand that MDT may yet be deleted. But understand this has nothing to do with the integrity of the theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs)
Comment I think this quote from WP:OR applies pretty well.
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia --Wafulz 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moving Dimensions Theory, like wikipedia, happened because of the internet. It has been read by thousands over the past ten years, and the record will show that never once has its logic nor beauty been refuted. It was born upon the internet, and unlike the cloistered, well-funded, secret-society hoax that is string theory, it stands on its own. Sure, we could delete this article on MDT because string theorists don't want to share their massive funding, but then perhaps we should delete all of wikipedia and stick with professional encyclopedias such as Britanica and Encarta. I say let logic, reason, free thought, the internet and physics triumph over cloistered, antiquated, postmodern hoaxes. Let wikipedia reach its heights in helping to disseminate truth and beauty, while deconstructing intellectual debauchery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs)
Note editor's fourth ever contribution. Batmanand | Talk 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note identifying an author by their IP means that everyone now as a unqiue ip, even though most websites don't. It also means a total of three people use AOL.
I say we offer the author a chance to link to sources--I have seens several and I will help. String Theory, although it is now shown to be a postmodern hoax, has plenty of "sources," and yet it is a hoax. String Theory is original research, and not only that, but it is a proven lie as new books this fall and articles in Time, Scientific American, and Discover are attesting. Again, ultimately we must judge a theory on its truth and beauty, not on how hip tax and tuition funded pomo hipsters think it is, or we will be forever sentencing Socrates to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs)
I just helped the author out by listing some references and sources. There are thousands of them. The author should be given the chance to post more resources too, as without the vast amouts of NSF funding that String Theorists use to hire grad students and postdocs to pen fake papers, it seems the author has to rely on logic and reason instead of tax-and-tuition-funded hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs)
None of the sources are reliable. Batmanand | Talk 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you quite understand what we mean by "sources". We're not looking for general websites that might mention MDT (or sell T-shirts). We're looking for reliable references and citations regarding the tenents of the theory. This isn't the place to propound the theory itself, it's the place to write about the theory, describe who developed it, the history, and a brief overview. All of these must reference external sources that are reliable, preferrably mainstream sources of the information that you include here. It is preferred, too, that you document these sources by useing the <ref>text</ref> footnote format within the body of the text, so that a reader who wants to verify the legitimacy of a statement within the text can jump to that statement's source. That's what an encyclopedia entry should look like. Akradecki 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of our original research policy. And I fully support Wafulz's comment. We're not trying to be mean, it's just not the right venue to publish this particular piece fo writing. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as MDT is rooted in logic, truth and bauty. The wikipedia page on string theory is filled with lies--it should be deleted first, otherwise wikipedia will come to be known as a place that values lies over truth. Just because a lot of people believe a lie, or the government has written checks to fund it, does not make the lie true. Wikipedia has a chance here to stand on the right side of time, to live up to its potential. By killing this article, you are killing the spirit of wikipedia, and the spirit of truth. String theory not only has failed, but it is now failing to fail. Once it lied, but now it doesn't even think it has to lie anymore. By killing MDT and keeping string theory, wikipedia will shout out to the universe that it prefers lies over truth. Go ahead. Make my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.242.50 (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 Speedy delete A6, attack page. NawlinWiki 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have killed people

Nominated for speedy, but not really within the criteria... nominating for deletion instead. bd2412 T 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It can't be that hard - you seem to have quite eloquently expressed why it should be deleted! Batmanand | Talk 16:54, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew E. Clairmont

Non-notable with one self-published book. Victoriagirl 16:44, 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 keep. - Bobet 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Lee Clary

(also see discussion page)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Lee_Clary_%282nd_nomination%29

Let's leave aside for now the fact that this article was deleted by an AfD, despite heavy interference from its subject. Let's leave aside for now that after the article was deleted by due process, one of Clary's supporters tried to recreate the article under titles such as J L Clary, John Clary, and Johnny Clary. What makes it absolutely outrageous that this article exists is that this individual already has an article created by the same supporter who then created this one! The two articles even link to each other, Johnny Lee Clary and Johnny Angel (wrestler)! When I saw the attempt to promote Mr. Clary again, this time with an article focused on his career in pro wrestling, I thought it was pretty cheap, but I let it go. But now he's supposed to get two articles, when he and his supporters couldn't demonstrate enough notability in the first AfD for one article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notability is established by several newsworthy events with which he was involved. Former KKK leader, former WWF pro-wrestler, and current traveling preacher plus various interviews and news articles about him. Sufficient coverage to meet verifiability and incessant attempts to delete are annoying. Wjhonson 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I get 646 total, 142 unique, hits in English, which to me says he's not as influential or notable as some would like to believe. Most of the hits seem to be blogs and forums and, interestingly, a lot of Australian sites. I can't really find anything that qualifies as Reliable Sources. To clarify the history, earlier versions were pretty much created by Clary himself, full of OR, POV and unverifiable personal claims. Author of this version appears to be unrelated, someone who heard Clary speak, felt he deserved an article, and launched the DRV. However, it seems the content is still overwhelmingly based on Clary's own claims. Fan-1967 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, this ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (not the US ABC), and they interviewed him and let him tell his story, as did a number of other Australian news sources. (He seems to have done a better job of selling himself down under than he has in the US.) However, what these news reports all amount to is basically "Clary says that..." How much can be verified from a news report citing a source other than Johnny Lee Clary? Fan-1967 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that those who have voted claiming that he is not notable if you could read the talk page and then re-comment! Potters house 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-comment I see nothing really to change my opinion that Clary is very good at promoting himself, but the lack of external sources is still a huge problem. Fan-1967 14:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Oprah, Donahue, and the many many other people listed in the Talk page are not good sources? What is a good source then?
Vrmarshall, please note this is a discussion, not a vote. Please let us know why the article should be kept. --SiobhanHansa 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Don't Merge Clary has plenty of references to prove he is notable ReaganRebel 10:09, August 31, 2006 ReaganRebel (talk · contribs)'s third edit.
  • Keep and merge per Gwernol. He seems to be generally just notable enough to me, but if Bob Dylan doesn't get a separate article for his conversion to Christianity (which I'm not advocating for, just observing) this guy certainly shouldn't. One article will suffice. Dina 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I said in the first AfD, anyone with this man's resume is noteable. The problem is vanity, not notability. If this gets deleted again, please salt the earth with {{deletedpage}} - Richardcavell 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "So good they named you twice" only applies to New York. If he's notable, he gets one article. If not, then none at all. As we're only debating one of the two articles written on him, my vote is delete. The content of the deleted article can be merged with the other per Dina. Somebody will then prune it to a size which matches [not] Johnny's ego :-) Ohconfucius 06:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems like a deletion bot see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ohconfucius Also - why the POV? Johnny's Ego has nothing to do with it. It is not a case of whether you like the man or not but an examination of fact - Is he notable? Yes! Why put delete if you really mean merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house (talk • contribs)
Haven't you gotten yourself in enough trouble making baseless and vicious allegations about other editors, Nick? Or do you think it's okay to make personal attacks on other editors, as long as suspiciously new users and anonymous editors show up suddenly in order to claim that they think you are right in your baseless and vicious allegations? -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPIn Australia as well as in the USA Rev. Johnny Lee Clary is well known and has a very high profile in both countries. As I live in Australia and have seen Rev. clary on our national TV stations on many occasions, the last being on Andrew Denton's ABC TV Show which is viewed Nation Wide in Australia. Rev. Clary is also an ordained Minister in Christian Family Churches of Australia a national organisation.Hawkeyejd 09:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Hawkeyejd (talk · contribs)'s only edit.[reply]


  • KeepI've known OF Clary for years. It's not inappropriate in any way that he is listed. You would have to delete many others if you start here. 1 September 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritakaysinger (talk • contribs) Note First edit from brand new account.


  • Comment Okay, I added cats per Dennette and attempted to merge from Johnny Angel (wrestler) per several people. I think we should close this Afd and then Afd Johnny Angel (wrestler), especially as it appears to be a copyvio from [here]. Working on the wrestling credits, it appears to me that he was not an especially notable wrestler, but then again, what I don't know about pro wrestling could fill Wikipedia. I'd like it if someone who knows more about it gave the section a once over. The combined credits of ex-KKK, pro-wrestling preacher seem to fulfull WP:BIO for me. Still need more decent references though. Dina 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I posted a message to the wrestling project asking for someone to read over my section. The plethora of wrestling organizations and "world" titles in pro wrestling is pretty confusing to someone who doesn't follow it. Hopefully if I've made any errors, someone will find them. So let's close this Afd! Dina 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKeep Johnny Lee Clary in this wikipedia text. Cleanup and keep main article. User:Tstansell Note First edit from new user

  • Keep, merge and cleanup! as per Gwernol. Stop rigging the voting by asking friends to vote to keep the article (comment to whomever is doing this). This is a discussion based on arguments made in favor or against the AfD. The votes don't really matter if you're not going to say why you want to keep/delete the article. --Nishkid64 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His high ranking in the Klan coupled with the media attention he received (and still seems to receive) as a converted outspoken critic of Klan ideology and practices more than warrants an entry on him. As for hits - in some cases I don't think too much weight can be put on them in terms of determining someone's notoriety. I'm sure there's a lot of important composers and artists who get a similarly low number of hits, but those shouldn't go up for deletion. Deputy Marshall 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean it the hell up instead.  ALKIVAR™ 14:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content. No need to have two articles when one will do. --ScienceApologist 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has made the Australian press extensively. I think that is notable enough. MyNameIsNotBob 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the artical. I have known Johnny Lee most of my life. He has done the things that he says he has. I know his heart and he is out there trying to help people through the message of the love of Jesus Christ. I may be a nobody to most of you , but God knows my heart. KEEP the artical,its true!!I have videos of Johnny on all kinds of T.V. shows.Get over it, whats all the fuss about? Ask God yourself. I promise you he will answer you if youll stop and listen. from Leonard Kimble, Calif. — Friendofgods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The material from the second article on the same person, Johnny Angel (wrestler), has been merged into this article and redirected to this one as well. There are no longer two articles, which was what started this AfD in the first place. Will some administrator please close it? (It's attracting sockpuppets, fanboys, and trolls.) --Dennette 03:23, 3 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.
What a nutter eh?! Basket Feudalist 18:01, 31 March 2013 (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 Speedy Delete A8 by User:JesseW. ColourBurst 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Zpira

Body artist and modifier, nomadic performer and documentalist of the contemporary fringes. We have speedied this twice as vanity (at Lukas zpira) but a remark at User talk:Lavoice, the creator's talk page has touched a chord with me: isn't how it s work .. a wiki system . one people put what he know, another come on the top and add some more things etc. Note that this is Lavoice's first contrib so it may well be vanity. Also given Lavoice's voice on the talk page, the article is unlikely to be Lavoice's own words but a quick Google check does not give any hit for the text. -- RHaworth 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That source is a wiki which does not seem to know about copyright but I believe that the default is to assume "copyright all rights reserved". -- RHaworth 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the edit history of the article on bmezine.com shows a "Thevoice" as a major contributor today. It seems plausible to me that he wrote the article there, then decided to C&P it into Wikipedia in general. Is it really a copyvio to paste one's own article from one wiki to another? Dina 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case, then I don't know. I was assuming that LaVoice and TheVoice were two different people. LaVoice made the edit on Wikipedia months ago, while TheVoice just did it today. --Nishkid64 23:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The bmezine wiki article looks like it has several major edits today from "thevoice" am I missing something? (ready to admit it if I am) Dina 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Gah, I really am confused. I mean Lukas Zpira was heavily edited by user Lavoice today. Dina 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there's no copyright information stated at all in the wiki's page (which means it might have copyright issues in the near future), the wiki itself is not a commercial site and does not fall under the A8 criteria. It doesn't even have banner ads! ColourBurst 23:45, 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 userfy to User:Kadu-c/Bload Bowl, thanks/wangi 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bload Bowl

Nonnotable homemade sport, likely unverifiable. NawlinWiki 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer. Hello, Bload Bowl is a real sport. It's true that it is still confidential that's why you could have been "afraid" of my article. Note that this is the English version of the article I wrote on the French Wikipedia. Kadu-c 16:55, 30 August 2006
  • Comment. A quick google search for "Bload Bowl" with my preferences temporarily set to "English language results only" returns less than 10 seemingly relevant results, and some of these are in French as well (apparently as a result of incomplete filtering on the part of google). I don't know that this can be verified. I don't speak French, personally. I know enough to have figured out that some of the French results seem to be relevant, but I don't know if they're reliable. The total of seemingly reliable search results (with my admittedly weak translation skills) is roughly ten. Srose (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been on fr.wiki since the end of April with a couple of people having edited it. There don't seem to be many Ghits but it does seem to exist. Notability is an issue. Dlyons493 Talk 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. I understand your points of view. Bload Bowl website is not translated yet in English. So Wikipedia is a good way for international users to discover this sport until the translation is done. I wrote the original article on the French Wikipedia and I had no problem with the Deletion Policy. Actually I'm a bit surprised. Kadu-c 17:10, 30 August 2006
  • Delete. One of my first contributions to Wikipedia was on the game of crockey, an invented sport with no players outside my extended family. After I learned what Wikipedia is not, I had to ask for a speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for describing original inventions, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, nor an instruction manual, nor a crystal ball, nor a repository for original research. Without any reputable, independent sources to document the significance of this sport, it's not notable enough to be included here. Rohirok 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, which is nicely done, seems to describe an emerging sport, that is relevent in other countries. If we lived in another country the article might seem more relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs)
  • Answer. As stated in my article: "Since the universitary year 2000-2001, Bload Bowl is officialy known as an universitary sport in French Polynesia" = recognized as a legal sport. So it's not an invented sport that some idiots play in their garden. I know that it's not as popular as football for instance that's why many of you ask questions about legitimity of this sport. It's actually well developed in French Polynesia under the control of an official league and it's really considered as a traditionnal sport now. To the previous contributor: thanks for your support, it's appreciated. It's actually an emerging sport which only want to be known and practiced by many people. Kadu-c 20:58, 30 August 2006
    • You wrote: "it's not an invented sport that some idiots play in their garden." Without a reference, there's no way for us to know that it's not. Also, please be civil and refrain from calling me and my family "idiots." Rohirok 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize. It's not so easy to make people discover this new sport without being called myself an idiot too each time I talk about Bload Bowl.  :/ Reference links are below. Kadu-c 22:30, 30 August 2006
  • Delete unless WP:V is met; I am unable to find any reliable sources from third parties (the sport's own website and a YouTube video do not count) indicating any sort of widespread play or existence of this game. Please introduce citations (in English or French) and I might reconsider. --Kinu t/c 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Ok I understand what you're looking for. :) Here are some newspaper articles about Bload Bowl: [[23]]. Furthermore you can find here the status of the official Bload Bowl association: [[24]]. EDIT: and I forgot this link, few words about Bload Bowl on a French website talking about American Football: [[25]]. Kadu-c 22:12, 30 August 2006
    • English translations for the above are here and here. Unfortunately, it looks like the newspaper articles are scans, which cannot be auto-translated. Rohirok 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That last link looks like it links back to the main site. I hope nothing is wrong with my browser. Zephyr2k 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The newspaper articles are apparently scans and say that the game was invented by some university students about 10 years ago and currently has a few hundred adherents. At best, it seems non-notable to me but everything is hosted on their own site, so it could possibly be an elaborate hoax (although I don't really think so). If anyone really wants, I can translate a couple of the articles. Dlyons493 Talk 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Yes the articles are scans. One of the Wiki contributors above (User:Dlyons493) speaks French according to his User Profile. Maybe he can help you. :) Kadu-c 22:15, 30 August 2006
  • Proof. Here's the publication in the Official Journal which proves that a Bload Bowl association has been created: [[26]]. Write "Bload Bowl" in the field "Objet de l'association" and then click on the "Rechercher" button. You'll see the official report. Note that this website is "Le Journal Officiel". It's a document used by French Government to publish all the laws. It is also used to report creations of associations. Kadu-c 23:40, 30 August 2006
    • I don't doubt that the association has been created. The question is whether it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. We do not know the criteria for inclusion in "Le Journal Officiel," so it does not help us determine notability. Rohirok 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That Journal is legitimate and returns the following for the prefecture of Herault (a large admin division of continental France). It states the objectives of the HERAULT BLOAD BOWL WARRIORS: promotion of bload bowl and all parallel activities; organisation of bload bowl matches; installation and follow-up of the payment for the bload bowl; official classification of all the players past and present; attribution of the titles of senseï (teacher), star, hope, veteran, blue and pons; statistical official management of the bload bowler; organisation of activities having as their goal the reinforcement of friendly links between its members. I think we've moved on from verifiability which seems now accepted to notability. Have we any information on membership, competitions, funding etc? Dlyons493 Talk 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is also my issue. "Several exhibition games have already been played all over the world (mainly in France)" - Where else in the world? Is it played all over the world in competition level? Zephyr2k 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to the information from the newspaper clippings (graciously provided to me by Dlyons493), the sport had 70 members and 500 players as of 2003. Out of a population of about 250,000 in French Polynesia, it doesn't seem like a very notable sport even within its home region. I have nothing against the sport. I just don't think it's big enough yet for an article in this encyclopedia. Rohirok 00:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Dlyons493 wrote :"I think we've moved on from verifiability which seems now accepted to notability". Ok so you know that Bload Bowl is a real sport now. :) Zephyr2k wrote: "Where else in the world? Is it played all over the world in competition level?". Exhibition games have already been played in Laval (Quebec), New York (USA), Tampico (Mexico) and several cities in France including La Réunion Réunion. In competition level, apart from the original association based in French Polynesia, there's also an association in Montpellier (France). Rohirok wrote: "I just don't think it's big enough yet for an article in this encyclopedia". Actually the main problem of this association is worldwide communication. It's a vicious circle: if nobody talks about them then they'll remain always unknown. Kadu-c 07:19, 31 August 2006
  • Redirect to Blood Bowl. Not currently notable, wikipedia can't be the first place for information to be spread it has to be the collection of other information. Oh, and a hello to Kadu-c. MLA 10:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Rohirok wrote: "the sport had 70 members and 500 players as of 2003. Out of a population of about 250,000 in French Polynesia, it doesn't seem like a very notable sport even within its home region." Let's take a comparison. There's an article on English Wikipedia talking about Pétanque which is a typical French sport practised mainly in the South. In this article, we can read that there are "about 480,000 players licenced with the Fédération Française de Pétanque et Jeu Provençal (FFPJP)". 480.000 players out of a 60.000.000 population, that's basically the same ratio as Bload Bowl in French Polynesia. It's quite surprising as Pétanque is the "4th-largest sporting federation in France" according to this article. So I don't see problems concerning legitimate existency of Bload Bowl.
Hello MLA, glad to see you here ! :) MLA wrote "wikipedia can't be the first place for information to be spread it has to be the collection of other information". Ok I understand now what you all don't like in my article. Actually I've collected information from newspapers (links above). Newspapers are a valuable source of information and probably more reliable that any Internet contents oftenly written by uknown users. Maybe it sounds "old-fashionned" for you nowadays with the Internet-era, but I could understand it. :)
I suppose that you find me particularly insistant but it's because I didn't have any problems when I wrote the original article in French Wikipedia (some Wiki users even helped me with Wiki syntax). I feel a bit upset considering the fact that I spent so many nights to translate my article into English without hoping any rewards or consideration, just with the feeling to share knowledge with other people.
However, as suggested by MLA, I wouldn't mind seeing my article linked to the Blood Bowl article rather than being a main entry if it can sort things. Kadu-c 12:16, 31 August 2006
If the consensus is to delete or redirect, perhaps it could be userfied for Kadu-c so it will still exist in English and can potentially be re-submitted to the main space when it is brought in line with en.wikipedia requirements. MLA 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a good idea to have it userfied for Kadu-c. Maybe in the future it can be resubmitted when it has become more notable. Zephyr2k 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What do you mean by "userfied" ? I'm not very familiar to Wikipedia terms I'm sorry. Does it mean that I can write my article on my User Page ? If this is correct I agree with that. :) Kadu-c 20:08, 31 August 2006
    • Comment: Yup, that's exactly right... WP:USERFY has all the technical mumbo-jumbo, but yes, basically, the article would be moved to somewhere like User:Kadu-c/Bload Bowl for you to work on in the interim. You've obviously put quite a bit of work into it, and there's no sense in throwing all that away since I trust that you will work on the article to address the concerns above. I'm all for it, so best of luck! :) --Kinu t/c 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've redirected my article to the example link you've just given me. So you can delete the Bload Bowl page now. Thanks to all contributors for this discussion. I know Wikipedia philosophy better now ! See you later ! ;) Kadu-c 21:40, 31 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 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Penczak

Non notable person. Fails WP:V. Been around since November 2005 with little improvement. NothingMuch 16:55, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_30&oldid=72847849"