Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 11

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phelanpt (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 11 September 2006 (A_Garagem_da_Vizinha). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 10 September 12 >

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 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortunate Sons

Unsigned band, no recordings, only link to myspace article. Camillus (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a speedy though since notability is asserted per Radio Scotland etc. quotes. I removed the speedy tag, no need to run two deletion processes in parallel. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsigned bands are only notable if they've generated media buzz for some reason. I might be more inclined to vote keep if the quotes about the band were sourced, but as it is I really don't see anything to convince me of notability. -Elmer Clark 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this band may meet WP:MUSIC's "[h]as been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". I'm unable to determine how long their live set on BBC Radio Scotland was, but in a programme that runs 1 hour 55 minutes, it may well have been >=30 mins. That would two vague claims to notability then. No gig reviews found though in the papers though, which isn't a good sign. Don't see how it can be verifiable beyond the trivial fact of their existence unless there's a transcript of the radio appearance out there. Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 12 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 of the debate was Delete. Original research. El_C 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Cultures and Crime

I am, to put it midly, concerned with this article. First, the title is POV suggesting a clearly established link between the two things. Second it is pretty much OR and states as a fact that

There is an interesting association between high violent crime in nations whose ancestors were cannibals.There are numerous examples of these corrolations and claims of genetic predisposition to violence in certain cultures.

whereas I am pretty certain that this is at best a very very highly contested[1] [2] extrapolation from a single researcher's work. Dr Lea's work seems to have caused quite a roar but it also seems that he never made a link between cannibal cultures and crime. It also does not appear that he has had much support from the rest of the scientific community. This has no place on Wikipedia and I hope people will avoid the "keep and make neutral" pitfall here. This is a fringe topic and a fringe opinion with no real backup. Pascal.Tesson 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want this to be deleted as much as anyone but frankly I don't think it quite qualifies as an attack page. Also (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think speedy tags should not be used when there's an ongoing AfD. Or are attack pages an exception? Pascal.Tesson 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR and inability to pass WP:V. If it can be speedied as an attack page as well, I'm for that. 205.157.110.11 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the speedy tag - articles can be speedied while in an AfD if they fall under a CSD. However, this is not a blatant attack page per se, and the AfD hasn't really been open long enough for any opposition to have a chance to argue, so for now, I'm leaving it open with the knowledge it's pretty likely to be deleted eventually. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for the clarification. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, totally POV. "The high crime rate in Mexico could be due to genetic diffrences in monoamine oxidase genes that were present in the Aztecs and were passed on to the present day Mexicans." You must be joking. Poverty tends to be correlated with high crime rates, and Mexico is a fairly poverty-stricken country. Wild and unfounded speculation about other supposed 'causes' does not belong on Wikipedia. --S0uj1r0 08:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all discussion above. There is nothing worth saving in this article that hasn't been covered better elsewhere.--Saintlink 10:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. None of the sources cited state that there is a correlation between a cultural history of cannibalism and modern day crime - there's just two or three sets of "this culture is allegedly disproportionately violent today <cite1> and allegedly practiced cannabalism in the past." <cite2>. Pretty much a textbook example of OR. TheronJ 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much a textbook example of what we mean by "original research". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, not NPOV...AfD candidates don't come much more clear-cut than this. -Elmer Clark 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yomangani and just about everybody else. --Richard 07:46, 14 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. Non-notable. El_C 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Café Catholica

delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is a very minor event. Google finds 48 non-wikipedia links, mostly catholic blogs advertising the event. I guess we could say "cathocruft"... No coverage I could find from reliable, independent sources. Pascal.Tesson 00:20, 11 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. --Ixfd64 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagbanger

Non-notable neologism/urban dictdef; less than 300 Google hits (many unrelated to this def) and only cited source is urbandictionary.com. Prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:20, 11 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 a7, rapper with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jet phynx

Looks like a vanity page by user JetPhynx. (see also, Cashmire Records) Walkiped 00:28, 11 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 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind-N-Magick

De-prod'd and re-prod'd article. Since that's against WP:PROD, I'm sending it here. Original nominator's rationale was "Does not assert notability per WP:WEB". JLaTondre 00:33, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airwork Flight 23

This aviation incident is not noteworthy. – Zntrip 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep noteworthy Tony P 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy, and notable improvements were made as a result of this incident. --Targetter (Lock On) 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How could this incident be noteworth? Two people died. Minor aviation incidents happen every day. There can't be a page for everyone. – Zntrip 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a vote, people. We need arguments better than "noteworthy" and "not noteworthy." If Targetter will specify the notability of the improvements made, then maybe we'll be able to actually assess notability (I say this because I'm not actually involved in flight, so I have no idea how important the changes implemented were). --Wafulz 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Targetter Shortfuse 01:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -AMK152 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I fail to see what makes this aviation accident notable since people dying from plane accidents occur a lot. TJ Spyke 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Under "Aftermath", the article describes the lessons learned from the crash and how they changed aircraft operating procedures. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is ludicrous. Airline crashes are encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should every airplane crash that ever happened have an encyclopea article? Hundreds of planes crash every year. Two people died on this airplane. If two people die in a car crash should there be a Wikipedia article about it? – Zntrip 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This event is inherently verifiable based on reliable sources, including news coverage and official reports from government investigatory bodies. If we can have articles on every elementary school, articles on every single Pokemon, articles on every coin, every TV show character... why not plane crashes? I think Airwork Flight 23 is a far more interesting and poignant story than, say, this page about some irrelevant and insignificant nonexistent persona invented by a Star Trek screenwriter. FCYTravis 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at this site: NTSB database. There are thousands of plane crashes. Should there be an article on ever single one? – Zntrip 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, what? We're rapidly approaching 2 million articles. Tens of thousands of articles about schools. Thousands of articles about some stupid sci-fi franchise. Thousands more articles about some other stupid sci-fi franchise. Hundreds of articles on Pokemon. You're telling me that some more articles about a few plane crashes is going to cause Wikipedia to run out of not paper? Ludicrous. FCYTravis 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The basic fallacy of the argumentum ad Pokémon, which is what you are propounding, is that Wikipedia's task is not to be an encyclopaedia of what you consider, subjectively, to be more "worthy" and more "important" than Pokémon. It is the world at large, not Wikipedia editors, that determines notability. Notability is not subjective. If the world at large writes more source material about Pokémon than it does about aeroplane crashes or about characters in Latin textbooks, because the world at large considers them more notable, then Wikipedia has to simply reflect that. If you think that the world at large has an unbalanced perspective, then it is the world at large that you need to change, by persuading it to write more source material on what you personally consider to be worthy and important. Wikipedia is not an instrument for changing human knowledge, only for reflecting it. Uncle G 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article is reliably and verifiably sourced - far more verifiably sourced than any article on Pokemon ever will, given that no government agency will ever compile an accident report about the death of a Pokemon in battle, looking to determine causes and find ways to prevent such Pokemon deaths in the future, as is the case with this crash of an air-carrier-operated airliner. FCYTravis 07:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the majority of ships that sink do get articles. Akradecki 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that the question be clarified to: Should there be an article on every single crash of a 4-ton or larger aircraft that leads to the complete loss of the aircraft and all aboard due to a non-trivial cause with a non-trivial aftermath? —BozoTheScary 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - non-notable frequently occuring event --Ineffable3000 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article on a crash of a 4-ton or larger aircraft that leads to the complete loss of the aircraft. Kappa 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Nom has failed to assert why incident is not suitable for wikipedia.
  • Keep and rename to Airwork Flight 23 Crash. If the number of air crash pages ever exceeds the number of Pokemon pages, wake me up. Vizjim 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saying that if there are a lot of Pokemon and Star Trek articles tons of plane crash articles wouldn’t be a bad thing sound like fuzzy logic. An article about every plane crash isn’t possible or practical. Should there be an article about every car crash or ship that sunk? I guess it better than Pokemon, so why not. Is that how you justify your statements? – Zntrip 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa, FCYTravis, et al. And to respond to Zntrip, yes, it is possible to have an article about every plane crash involving an air carrier (passenger or cargo) with fatalities, and an official investigation, report, and news stories. (I wouldn't necessarily extend notability to every general aviation crash, on the other hand, without some particular reason for an article.) --MCB 05:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Verifiable, NOR and reasonably NPOV article about a real-world event of some arguable importance. I'd prefer a clearer title, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing notability. A Google for "airwork"+"flight 23" gets ONE hit, unrelated. Doing a search for "airwork flight 23" gets ZERO hits. Yes, two official reports were generated per article references, but even they don't reference it as "flight 23". I might guess there were local NZ newspaper articles written, but the fact nothing else appears to be circulated is symptomatic of lack of notability. I fail to see any substantive changes to flight ops from this one accident, the NZ report describes changing checklists, and making sure fuel balancing is done correctly. The fact it is possible to have an article about every plane crash doesn't mean there has to be one. Tychocat 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since there is a common theme to this set of airplane crash AfD, there will be an equally common theme to my replies I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all fallacious arguments. Saying that something affects a lot of people and therefore merits inclusion is a fallacious argument because there are quite a lot of traffic accidents every single day that affect a lot of people, that cannot even be verified after the fact. Saying that something includes a fatality and therefore merits inclusion is a fallacious argument because there are many fatalities every day, the reporting of which would turn Wikipedia into the very memorial that by policy it is not. Saying that because someone was interested enough to write the article and it merits inclusion is a fallacious argument, because people write all sorts of original research about things that they are interested in (mainly themselves, of course, but not universally) every day.

      An argument that isn't fallacious is an argument that addresses the sources, as Tychocat does. The provenance and depth of the available sources is what should determine whether something merits inclusion. Uncle G 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Do car crashes get the kind of media coverage that airline crashes do? I would say the relative rarity of airline crashes in approximation to car crashes plays a major role in that. Plus the public has a perpetual fascination with airlines which makes the notability of commercial airline crashes with fatalities all the more enduring. 205.157.110.11 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some car crashes get lots of media coverage. Some air traffic accidents get no media coverage. Trying to cover all such accidents with a single blanket provision is another fallacious argument. Once again: Please address the sources, as Tychocat does. Uncle G 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uncle G. How many car crashes get national media coverage? or even regional coverage outside of it's individual market? How many car crashes trigger mandatory government investigations? Now contrast that with commercial airline crashes which always get's coverage if there is a fatality. (If it bleeds, it leads) and more often then not the coverage is regional if not national and they always trigger a mandatory government investigation even if it's pilot error. It's a fallacious comparison. 205.157.110.11 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not to speak for Uncle G, but the argument that newspaper standards should also be our standards is also fallacious. This is an encyclopedia, with stated guidelines and policies for inclusion of articles. Can you address this issue in terms of WP policies? Tychocat 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a fallacious comparison. — Then why did you make it? (Hint: "traffic" != "car".) For the third time: Please address the sources. Uncle G 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • An easy survey above shows that you were the one who introduced the car crash comparision to try and nullify my contention that fatalities in a commericial airline crash is a major thing and adds markedly to the signifigance of the event-and by extension it's encyclopedic merit. Your retort was that my contention was akin to making Wikipedia a memorial and your introduced your fallacious comparision of a car crash. Ironically, your fallacious comparison only strengthens my contention because in that absurdity of your comparision the overwhelming signifigance of commericial jet airline crashes is shown clear. The media coverage and the mandatory government investigations they trigger set them apart from other events in a signifigant manner.

As for Wikipedia policy, there is no policy or guideline that inclusion violates. The closest anyone has come is to try and stretch WP:NOT as either a memorial or an indiscriminate collection. The memorial is a straw man since no one is advocating a memorial to the particular individuals but rather that the fact that there is fatalities enhances the overall signifigance of the event (i.e. the newscoverage and the mandatory government investigations). With the second, far from being indiscriminate articles like this chronicle specific and signifigant events for all the reasons that have been expounded on before.205.157.110.11 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as circumstances are "interesting" from an air crash perspective. I disagree that all air crashes resulting in deaths are inherently notable -- there were ~400 fatality crashes in the last year alone![3] Note, reported. Database does not contain all crashes. Scheduled flights with fatalities is more manageable at 9. Thus, my general rule of thumb would be scheduled flights with fatalities. That would still exclude this one, though. In any case I definitely discourage articles about non-fatal incidents (like the one a few weeks back about that guy who was arrested for freaking out). I'm just suggesting a metric for judging stuff that should be a "speedy keep".--Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Dhartung that not all flights with fatalities are noteworthy, those by scheduled service (cargo included) are presumably so, and nothing has rebutted this presumption. Carlossuarez46 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally, I would consider any fatal airplane crash notable. Even if you don't accept this, as others pointed out, this crash led to new safety measures being implemented, so it had a lasting effect on the industry. Oh, and to those of you invoking WP:POKEMON: let's not go there if possible :) -Elmer Clark 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any fatal plane crash? Is that your resoning? What about any fatal car crash? – Zntrip 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP has plenty of other articles on airliner crashes. Saying this one isn't notable assumes some kind of arbitrary threshold has been set. How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • while I appreciate the heartfelt italics, I think the issue is not body count, but notability per stated WP standards. Can you address the article in terms of those, or can you only invent your own standards? Tychocat 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone may prove me wrong, but although a plane disintegrated, there was little news generated, and the consequences would appear to be really quite minor adjustments to flight procedures. Ohconfucius 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Investigation had an impact on the checklists and rules for the Swearington Metro aircraft, so the event has significance which goes beyond just a normal and sadly all-too-common small plane crash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, inadequate rationale for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There's more to this story than the article talks about. The SA-227 has had some chronic autopilot issues that this touches on. And, fuel management is an important issue in aviation, and this incident is an important "lessons learned" example. Although only 2 died (fortunately!) the parameters of the incident, the crew inputs and reactions and the ultimate outcome make it, from an aviation perspective, quite notable. Akradecki 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and general discussion have been moved to the discussion page to keep things orderly here. Akradecki 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion restored. Please do not refactor AFD discussion in this way. Uncle G 13:03, 14 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, although in reality this will simply be redirect since there's no information worth merging not in the target article --- Deville (Talk) 06:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Cantor Metzger

May have been related to two notable people, but I don't believe she is notable by herself. 75 Ghits, mostly from wikipedia or biographies about her father and husband. --Targetter (Lock On) 00:50, 11 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. --- Deville (Talk) 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Thrill Me

A supposed demo by Madonna. If anything this should be redirected to Unreleased Madonna songs. The source provided makes no indication that this will be a future single. eo 00:57, 11 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 06:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoy (Lake Constance)

Tiny island that, from the looks of it in the image provided as well as the text of the article, is completely non-noteable. Descendall 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is about as important as a hill or a small street. Unless the island has had some profound historical signficance, the article should be deleted. --Wafulz 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly (but unlikely) merge to Lindau. What's next, documenting every sandbar and shoal? My Alt Account 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lake Constance Zazaban 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's less than 100 square meters! I'm quite surprised that it actually has a name. --Supermath 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless there's something particularly unique or important about this truly tiny island, there's no way it's notable enough. Dylan 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Someone went to the trouble to build a wall around it, must be worth mentioning somewhere. Kappa 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more information here. I can't find anything on Google [4] even confirming this at all. But there is an ariticle on this in the german Wikipedia, so I doubt it's a hoax... more likely just something not very well documented in English. --W.marsh 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • W.marsh points out the basic problem with this article. It doesn't cite sources. Neither does the article in the German Wikipedia. For all that readers know, this could be complete fiction. (It wouldn't be the first time that a fictional article originated at the German Wikipedia.) Even if this were a real island, how are readers expected to verify the article's contents? How can readers verify that the dimensions of the island are as the article gives them? Requiring that readers go to the island and physically repeat the measurements is contravening our Wikipedia:No original research policy.

    We keep articles on real places not because they are "real places", but because they are independently and substantially documented real places. (The plot of grassland to the side of my house is a real place.) Small towns with small populations are documented in censuses, for example. Mill Ends Park was written about in a newspaper for several years and was listed in the Guinness Book of Records, for another example. Where is the documentation for this island? The article doesn't say, and a search for documentation doesn't turn up anything more than this or this from which we can get no more than "Hoy is an island in Lake Constance.".

    Redirect to Lake Constance or (since the disambiguation at hoy (disambiguation) is where readers will come to and that can be redirected directly) delete. Uncle G 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: at least keep note in Lindau article an in disambiguation. Lake Constance has served as a important waterway for thousands of years and even a tiny island could accumulate more history that a city recently founded somewhere in a desert. That Google has nothing doesn't wipe out the history. Pavel Vozenilek 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to be real (search for Hoy and Bodensee (the German name), but apart from that completely uninteresting. Unless more info can be found to give it some importance (an interesting history or so), it should be deleted. Fram 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, it could have accumulated more history than a city in a desert, but unless there are verifiable sources that say it has done so, that's not a persuasive argument. Geoffrey Spear 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place, and if lack of sources were reason enough to delete articles then we'd be half the Wiki we are. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up I have added a couple of references that were easily obtainable from Google had anyone wanted to. Apparently, this island is of a vacation spot for Germans. Also, other small islands have articles: Wake Island, Sealand, Alcatraz, Rikers Island, Liberty Island, Lindisfarne and while Hoy may not be as notable as these, it is apparently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hoy isn't even close, the former are much bigger and most have considerable historical significance. Irongargoyle 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You forgot to include Manhattan and Singapore in the Worst Analogy Ever there. Geoffrey Spear 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Are Germans agoraphobics? They like to vacation on a 53 square-meter island? Wavy G 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those references seem to just be about the entire Lake Constance region, talking about museums and castles and town centres - which I doubt exist on this island... anyway the one mention of the island literally just says that the island belongs to Lindau. No information about the island at all beyond that it's in Lindau. And yeah, Worst Analogy Ever seems warrented here, sorry. The Lake Constance region is no doubt a vacation spot - this island, not so much so. --W.marsh 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before you claim too much high ground on the matter of editors doing research, you might care to notice that I already linked to two such pages, including one of the very ones that you cited, in my rationale preceding yours, and noted that they provide no information about this island beyond "Hoy is an island in Lake Constance.". (There are several such pages. They all have no more information on this island.) Also note that lack of sources is one of the primary reasons that we delete things here. Uncle G 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before you deleters claim any high ground at all and criticize the analogy: be bold and set a stake in the ground: how small is too small for an island to be notable for WP? Does that same size apply to the plethora of schools or fictional pokemon monsters the plague this so-called encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LOL, is this the place where Johnny Castaway lived? My bedroom is nine meters long and six meters wide--Can I write an article about it? Wavy G 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry, I'm still not convinced. The new reference does not say that this island is a major vacation spot, it's only alluded to once as an afterthought. I think I'll go ahead and AfD the German version as well; perhaps someone there will come up with a good reason to keep this. -Elmer Clark 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated the German version here. -Elmer Clark 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Delete. The weirdness of this article intrigues me. Why in the world did someone build a stone wall on this island? Very strange indeed. Anyways, the ducks in the foreground are probably more notable than the island itself, so a reluctant delete for now, but if somebody can provide some more references I might be inclined to change my vote. Might be a WP:BJAODN candidate if it were actually funny. It is just odd. Irongargoyle 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to strong delete based on the arguments for keeping. These make me realize what a bad precident would be set by including this island. The argument that all real places with names should be keep it is an awful one. It has no references, it has no notability, the only real verifiability is that someone has placed it on the German Wikipedia as well and happened to take a photo. Irongargoyle 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, the german AfD is... taking a bit of an unexpected turn. They all want to keep A) because it's the smallest island in a large lake (apparently this is seen as a very compelling reason to keep) and B) Because they rarely keep an article that wp-en would delete, and find doing so to be an amusing concept. They don't even seem to understand why the article is nominated. Wp-de is weird! --W.marsh 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Peta 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why should we delete this article? Only because the island is small? Then we must delete all arcticles about small islands, towns, ... Chaddy2 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Towns are or have been inhabited. This island is empty, and as far as we know has always been empty. But if you can show me a bunch of other articles for similar islands (let's say, less than 100m²) which have no historical facts, disputes, lighthouses, or other clearly important distinguishing features, then I may rethink my position. As it is, I don't think that we would have to delete even one other article based on this precedent... Fram 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was kind of clear that the problem is that there's little to no information in English about this island. The only information in german so far is just that "It's an island". Obviously if there is more information than that on an island, we would probably keep the article... but right now now one but Wikipedians seems to care enough about this island to write anything about it. --W.marsh 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't use straw men. The reasons were given above, and have everything to do with a lack of sources and of anything verifiable to write about the island beyond 1 sentence, and nothing to do with the size of the island. Uncle G 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see Diskussion AFD in the German WP. And yes, every geographical location, whether river, town, island or named hill is relevant in the German WP, which has otherwise much much harder restrictions for relvancy. --213.155.224.232 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read that there are 3.5 million lakes over 20 acres in Alaska alone. I personally find the idea that every geographic location is "relevent" to a bit troubling, Uncle G's arguments make a good deal more sense. I'm not sure wp-de's philosophy on this has been sufficiently challenged... although I was just looking at it through a machine translation, it didn't seem like there was anything approaching the refinement of Ungle G's arguments on the german AfD for this article. It was just a pretty simplistic "Keep, all places are notable" argument, regardless of whether there's actually any good information on that place. --W.marsh 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete African villages just because we don't have a lot of data about them, and including every named location seems reasonable, wikipedia not being paper. 213.155.224.232 could you please ask the German wikipedians to provide an enternal reference to prove that the island actually exists? 213.155.224.232. Kappa 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I too reiterate my request for the German Wikipedians to cite sources. But we need more than "mostly harmless". Existence isn't enough. The plot of grassland to the side of my house exists, and there are citable public records to prove that. We need something that contains enough to actually hang an encyclopaedia article off — something that, for starters, can be used to verify the current content of this article. Uncle G 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that we could technically have 3.5 million articles on 3.5 million lakes, but 99.99% of them never say anything more than "There's a lake this big at these coordinates". There's just literally no more information in print or on the web. I don't think that's at all useful in an encyclopedia. So by extension, if an article about a place could literally never say more than "There's a place here that's this big"... I don't think we should include it, it's really no more important than Uncle G's plot of grassland. But I think there might be some confusion here, the german's might be assuming "Well of course there's more information" and just not mentioning their sources. --W.marsh 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kappa: We have problems with that. ;-) It seems that a row of sites around Lake Constance and the town Lindau does mention it, but [www.google.com The World's Biggest Trash Can] does not provide any further information. What I can do is to try to send an email to the town administration to confirm the information included into the article. --213.155.224.232 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: At a town-map /first link at the right column/ A popüp window appears with an overview map on teh left. If you're clicking into the area just above the "D" in the towns mapyou'll get a part of the map (certainly) in which "Insel Hoy" is marked, as a proof for its existence. --213.155.224.232 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: I think you're missing the point. Just because it exists does not mean that it should be included in this encyclopedia. The article makes no assertion of noteability, and that is grounds to delete it. --Descendall 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's size (smaller than the Oval Office makes it unique and therefore notable.--213.155.224.232 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unique? Are you honestly suggesting that this is the only tiny insignificant island in the world? Small little islands are often found right off of the coast of lakes. --Descendall 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the only Bavarian small island in Lake Constance. OTOH I think some here are too much US-biased. Remember you're not writing a WP for the US but an English-language WP for everyone! --88.101.47.64 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 213. Kappa 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am German and in WK-de for a month wondering about small islands and streets getting own articles. I argued in de against Hoy, but nobody listened. Maybe its because our country has less square miles than Montana (though more inhabitans), so there are not that many islands. But anyway, there are many bigger than this. --Adbo2009 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Akradecki 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: general discussion and comments have been moved to discussion page to keep things orderly. Akradecki 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a history of 35 versions within a year in the German WP. Update rhythm can be considered as a measure of interest. Some over-detailled information (e.g. exact distances in m) may be simplified: "about 400 m" etc.--84.73.211.212 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that this vote to keep is User:84.73.211.212's only contribution to wikipedia. --Descendall 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for adding a vote without signature. I usually contribute to the German WP - extensively. And please value a vote by its arguments, not by its contributor's statistics ;-)--Panda17 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • AfD is not a vote. --Descendall 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your actual argument is fallacious. Counting edits to an article doesn't indicate whether something is encyclopaedic. Sources do. Please cite some. Several editors have asked German Wikipedians, who are in the best position to do so, to do this, several times. Yet you have yet to cite any. Uncle G 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Counting edits to an article doesn't indicate whether something is encyclopaedic, that's right, but whether it is of interest. The article seems to be of interest (but its style could be more encyclopaedic, yes). And as to citing sources, see above: If lack of sources were reason enough to delete articles then we'd be half the Wiki we are. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC) So stop emphasizing this "argument" for deletion.--84.227.140.88 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally: When compared to areas of the same size (e.g. Uncle G's grassland, see above), islands always get more attention. Another example of the grassland size type is Rockall with a diameter of 25 m. Size alone is not a sufficient argument.- However, I'd agree that, on average, relevance decreases with distance between the location of the place and the location of the readers, i.e. Hoy is definitely more interesting for the German WP than for the English WP. --Panda17 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, this island apparently has less attention than the patch of grassland at the side of my house. We do not measure notability by how far away things are, moreover. Wikipedia, in both languages, is an international encyclopaedia. Furthermore: I draw your attention to Rockall#References. Please cite some sources. Uncle G 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, every Wikipedia puts more weight to things within countries of the specific language, even if they all try to be international. And there is no problem with that! That's why it's okay to delete the island in the English WP and to keep it in the German WP.

There are medieval sources. I have been editing the german version. There is some possible ambiguity in the sources due to high sedimentation in the area but the article represents the consensus on the topic. I think the problem is rather that the article on Lindau does not list it as a tourist attraction, so english-speaking tourists (there are quite a few) will not easily find the article. When i go traveling i like to know as much as possible about the place i am visiting even i do not care about the places i am not visiting. --Masegand 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us some links (in German is allright) that show us that it is a tourist attarction? Similarly, can you give any indication in what medieval texts it is referenced, and what is said there about it? The German version says nothing about either claim, and none of the websources given here do so. It is listed, usually at the end of the lsit, as a minor island in the Bodensee, and that's it. See e.g. Uncle G's post above, who says as well that while many claims have been made by 'keep' proponents, none of them has been able to give any source for it, making it (the claims of importance, not the island itself) unverifiable and thus a perfect candidate for deletion. Fram 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed i guess it is a minor tourist attraction, there are no visitors entering the island but it is well visible from the bridge to the island of Lindau and approachable by boat, and listed in the hungarian version of Lindau. The medieval sources i heard of are images not texts, and the english article does not make much claims other than that the island exists and showing an image. As well as on several tourism websites where it is listed among other small islands in the lake of constance (without image). The origin of the name is also not explained. In the german article on Hoyren the (church) latin horea/storehouse is mentioned. I could find a reference on horreum/barn, granary, storehouse on [5] and horia/small fishing boat which would also make sense. There is also the greek horaios/beautiful which would hint to an early 19th century fabrication for the purpose of tourism or simply greekophilia which was rampant in bavaria at the time, however Hoyren is mentioned in medieval text in 1275/1278. So apparently several sources would have to have been faked then which is not impossible though especially if you are a conspiracy guy e.g. the bavarian illuminati etc.... In alemannian language Hoy sounds like german Heu/english hay possibly related to the barn, granary, storehouse meaning, but unlikely/strange for such an small island. Please note i am not doing primary research just speculating, but possibly those people doing it needed to be contacted or referenced indeed.... In the german version there is also a reference to the medieval gallows island, which Hoy is not but sometimes assumed to be as it is the only small island left near Lindau in these days. About its relevance, nothing other than simple facts are mentioned in the current english article, but the length of this discussion is surprising and i think also related to US/European cultural differences about the relevance of something like that. --Masegand 20:33, 14 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heralda Luxin

Nominated by anon, unable to create article, no vote from me. Fan-1967 00:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake WW II article about the holocaust. If you google her name the only results are this page—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.232.219.24 (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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Current Controversies

Delete – the "article" is simply a table of contents to a highly non-notable book. Peter G Werner 01:08, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Woods

Murder victim lacking notability. I find nothing to indicate that the crime was particularly unusual or otherwise noteworthy. [6] Prod removed by author. —dustmite 01:10, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Wonder of the World

I just found this page listed as AFD without a discussion page, so I created one. Supermath 01:34, 11 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 with Leonid Kuchma. Mangojuicetalk 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian politicians and statesmen closely associated with President L. Kuchma

There are POV concerns inherent with this article. There is a difficulty as to defining a "cut-off" as to what level of dealins with Mr Kuchma is required to constitute "closely associated" and eg, what counts as "professional" dealings, and what would be "conflict-of-interest".Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:45, 11 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 10:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1963 Rochester air crash

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been (very slowly) working on this task, and this article is already in my crosshairs. The only reason I haven't renamed it yet is I am concerned it could disrupt the AfD discussion. If the result is "keep" or "no concensus," I will rename it. (FYI, I am not voting because I am frankly on the fence about it) --Jaysweet 21:32, 13 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. --- Deville (Talk) 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Airlines Flight 405

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. My apologies. 205.157.110.11 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that there is currently no notability standards for airline crashes (not even an essay). What we have is a substantial event involving a commercial airline crash that resulted in loss of life and triggered mandatory investigations and resulting media coverage. In the absence of a current guideline, I do think the above plays a large consideration in the notability and merit of inclusion. I do encourage the development of such an essay but I think the one precedence that no one wants to see come out of this is some sort of "body count threshold" (i.e. so many people have to die to be considered notable) being connected. 205.157.110.11 09:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, there is no specific standard for air crashes, but that's like saying there's no specific standard for a specific company, book, or person, when the general WP policies and guidelines still apply. To act like we need to reinvent the wheel for every pet issue misses the points that we're still bound by WP:NOT, or simple extension of other policies and guidelines. One point that looks very applicable is from WP:BIO, which asks whether there has been any lasting contribution to the field. It's clear in this case there has not. Also, if you don't want to reduce this to a body count, then don't. I haven't, and I don't see why you keep waving the dead about when you say you don't want to. Tychocat 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between inferring that there is notability because a fatality is involved in a signifigant event and a "death threshold". One is acknowledging a facet of an event that adds to the signifigance and the other is setting up a measuring bar like a carnvival ride that says "You must have X number of people die before you can be included in this encyclopedia.". Far from "waving the dead about", I'm contending for the former and strongly advocating against the later. 205.157.110.11 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. Then we agree that fatalities have nothing to do with notability. Let us move on. Tychocat 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons as Airwork Flight 23. --- The Bethling(Talk)
  • Keep, high-quality article; absolutely no valid reason for deletion provided.--SB | T 00:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These crashes are all major events and should be covered here. --JJay 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; the article is poor (it doesn't even mention where the crash occured, other than a quick note in the infobox), but a plane flown by a moderately sucessful airline crashing into a large US city with loss of life sounds fairly notable to me. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A scheduled flight with fatalities is significant. Brianski 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Mohawk Airlines Flight 411 to form "Mohawk Airlines Crashes" or similar Markovich292 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important crash on several fronts. First, notability: it had NTSB investigation with a full hearing and an extensive report. Most minor aviation accidents, even with fatalities involved, don't get federal NTSB investigation (local FAA district office alone investigates many/most) and then many of those with NTSB investigation don't get a public hearing. So this one ranks near the top in that department, which relates to notability, since NTSB is a political body that invests its limited investigative resources (to some extent) according to the perceived public importance of the case (e.g. number of casualties, public figures or celebrities involved, etc.). Also, there were several important considerations in the accident itself that make it notable technically. First, the real causes of the 2 separate technical malfunctions that led to the crash are both unknown, which is fairly rare. Also, the crash worthiness aspects led to recommended improvements in that area. In addition, the actual proximate cause of the accident, i.e. lack of crew coordination and division of labor, led to a general recommendation in that area (which unfortunately didn't help much until some other accidents re-inforced the modern concept of CRM). In all, this is an important crash with unusual (undetermined) causes as well as important safety recommendations. The article does require work, however. Crum375 00:20, 17 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 07:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Airlines Flight 411

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Airline accidents with injuries or fatalities (as opposed to mere incidents like tire failures or engine explosions) are generally encyclopedic and can be well-sourced from verifiable official reports and period news reporting. Furthermore, your argument is entirely circular. "The incident is not noteworthy because... not every one can have an encyclopedia entry." Well, why not? FCYTravis 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crash appeared accidental and no assertion of flight procedure improvements was made. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plane crash caused by pilot error with few fatalities. No outstanding circumstances confer notability. —dustmite 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deaths (and a number of them in this case) makes it notable. If there were no deaths it would not be notable. Factual, verifiable, notable, keep per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Megapixie 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just have one problem with the WP:NOT (a paper encyclopedia) reasoning behind most of your replies. If that's the case, why not keep every single article that appears on wikipedia? Why bother with these deletions? After all, it's just disk space... --Targetter (Lock On) 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent article, nominator's reasoning is flawed. Kappa 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FCYTravis. --MCB 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A plane crash which kills 14 people is not notible, it happens every month. If Wikipedia is just disk space we might as well write an article on every person in the world. – Zntrip 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a difference between fatal crashes on air carriers (passenger and cargo), which are the subject of official investigations, reports, and in-depth news reports, and general aviation (private plane) crashes, which are not necessarily notable in the absence of other factors (famous passengers, unusual circumstances). --MCB 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think thresholds or precedent are the issues at stake here. Crashes are not notable just because those involved die. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and thousands more die in car crashes, affecting friends, families, and others interested. I don't see how a plane crash killing 14 is any more notable than a ten-car pile-up killing 14, but to have an article on the latter would be seen as absurd. Plane crashes happen very frequently, and more often than not, people die in them; none of this makes them notable in and of themselves. Furthermore, the "someone was interested enough to write it and others will want to read it" claim is entirely specious. Many articles are written and deleted every day for failing to meet Wikipedia standards of notability, from murders to bands. The fact that someone has interest in recording certain information doesn't in any way affirm that the information is useful to anyone else, or that it should be retained. --S0uj1r0 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think anyone is advocating that Wikipedia becomes a memorial here. There is no listings of who died or what not. What's being put forward is the concept that commercial airline crashes are major things-particularly those that have a fatality. Besides launching mandantory investigations, crashes with fatalities receive far more media converage and have direct impact on numerous people--even those not even involved with the crash. I think the comments that have unsettled some of us is the concept that because "only -blank amount- died" in the crash that lessens the notability of it. If you want to craft other arbitray guidelines on airline crash notability (Media coverage, procedure changes after the fact) then a Wikipedia Essay space awaits with your name on it. However, such notability essay (much less guideline) does not exist yet and the foolhardy "death threshold" is not one to currently stand in for it. 205.157.110.11 09:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is or isn't considered a low fatality count is entirely POV. Compared to the number of people killed in car accidents in a given day, 14 is very low. At what point do you make the cut? 14 may be high enough, but is 7 too low? --S0uj1r0 20:06, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironpoet

Contested prod. Non-notable Livejournal page fails WP:WEB. alphaChimp(talk) 02:15, 11 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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St.Albert RiverProspects

Article both misspelled, and a duplicate of St. Albert Big River Prospects, which is the teams proper name. Unlikely search term, and nothing to merge, so just delete. It strikes me that there could be a speedy criteria for something such as this, but I couldnt immediately find it - possibly A1 - and figured better safe than sorry, so here it is. Resolute 02:09, 11 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. DS 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Zero

Contested prod. This non-notable company directly fails WP:CORP. It seems like pure self-promotion to me. alphaChimp(talk) 02:22, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Cuthbertson

Non-notable player for a practice squad. Other than practice, minor league experience only. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until/unless he makes the majors. He did play in the WMBL, and is mentioned on the article for the St. Albert RiverProspects listed for deletion above. The WMBL is basically semi-pro, but moving towards the all college ranks ala the Cape Cod League. Also, he was actually a 6th round pick, and had an article written about him by a major local paper as a result: [10]. Resolute 03:08, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelbereth

Prod removed without comment. Appears to be some sort of amateur fiction. Character, "fictional universe" and author all fail google search. Unpublished fiction is not notable. Fan-1967 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article was prod'd 4 minutes after creation. 4 minutes. What, is Wikipedia so short of server space that it needs the 500 bytes or so this article takes up? Give the guy a chance to do his work. Has anyone actually attempted to improve the article? --Pussy Galore 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned for trolling[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hackel

Delete minor politician. The guy is the sheriff of one of the most populous counties in the state of Michigan - that's not enough for a WP article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. County sheriffs in many states have broad powers and are not "minor" officials. And like it or not, a large part of the U.S. population lives in suburban areas like Macomb County, which has a larger population than San Francisco or Baltimore or Boston. Kestenbaum 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And county sheriffs in urban counties are commonly less important than city chiefs of police. My Alt Account 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. But Macomb County is so balkanized into small cities that no city chief of police there is remotely as important as the county sheriff. The sheriff is also responsible for the county jail, which in a large county is a pretty significant institution. The Macomb County Jail has a capacity of 1,450, per the official site. Kestenbaum 04:02, 14 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Johansson

This skater is not considered notable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Figure_Skating#Notability.2C_revisited Dr.frog 03:25, 11 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. Vanity, and WP:SNOW; this is not going to pass, but just invite more meatpuppetry. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard H. Tower Jr.

Wikipedia:Autobiography violation. --Aplhac 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That policy specifically says "Deletion is not certain" just because it's an autobiography. Does this guy meet WP:BIO, the relelvent policy here? I'm not sure yet. --W.marsh 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have to love a guy who creates his own bio, that says he doesn't want fame and publicity. Fan-1967 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should probably have had a biography of Len Tower a long time ago. He is notable for his work in the free software community. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Bias - Abstain If you wish to research some of the public record about my role in the GNU Project and the FSF, one place to go are the GNU's Bulletins (which I helped start). They are probably on http://www.gnu.org, though they may have been moved to http://www.fsf.org.
    • I think an exception should be made to the Wikipedia:Autobiography policy for this page, even though I started it, and it is about me. The reasons include:
      • My contributions are short. One fact. One preference. Two links to my web sites for those curious about me.
      • I don't plan to add to it. I'm not sure at this point what to do, if something false is added -- your feedback welcome on this.
      • I stood by and with Richard Stallman and did much work on the GNU Project and helped him, gjs, hal, and rjc start the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for over a dozen years. I was a founding member of the Board of Directors of FSF, and served on the Board for a dozen years.
      • I'm listed on the FSF page for that role. Yes, I added that entry as well.
      • I added that entry and filled out the rest of the Board's history and added the Leonard H. Tower Jr. article, because a number of people sent me e-mail asking why that history wasn't in the Wikipedia FSF article. I added the two links to my websites, because the articles for the other FSF Board Members had them, and it would help sastisfy people's curiousity about who I am. I didn't add the link to my bio.html, because I only wrote it to sastisfy requests from high school and college friends about what's life been like.
      • I be willing to see my preference changed into a quote, if that fits Wikipedia culture better.
  • Keep and improve; notable subject; WP:AUTO not really a problem here. Also, I have moved the TOC discussion to the article's talk page, where it belongs. AfD is strictly a place to discuss deletion. A better place for the TOC discussion might be the village pump, however. --MCB 05:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Actualy, I don't think that there would have been the FSF if it wasn't for Len Tower. He also has supported the Free Software Movement since almost it's very beginning. Len Tower is a notable person and should be included in the Wikipedia.Org site. The really nice thing about Wikipedia is that we can learn about the people who helped to get us to where we are today.

--lile 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bias disclosure: Len is a friend that I still see occassionally. I believe that his contribution to FSF (and the FSF's work) is significant enough to merit an article. However, the current version needs better sourcing. GRBerry 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AUTO should never be a problem with stubs. It appears he passes WP:BIO, by satisfying "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" Ohconfucius 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have known Mr. Tower for decades and it is clear to me that he edited this page in order to make WP articles on FSF related maters, of which he was a major contributor, more complete and not for self aggrandizement. _HughDaniel 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
  • Keep I don't think Len has an egotistical bone in his body. The content makes Wikipedia more useful. --Rich $alz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.58.76 (talk • contribs) .
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
  • Keep I've known Len for nearly 20 years and if anything the entry is far too modest. In many ways, I do not believe the FSF would have gone as far as it has without him. While RMS had the vision, it takes smore than that to make an organization run, and that came from Len. Len never asked for limelight, even when RMS received a McCarther award. He just kept doing, and that says a lot. -- Eliot Lear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gargleblaster (talk • contribs) .
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
  • Strong Keep Why is this even a question? Len has been a widely known "tower" of the free software community since the beginning, and is integral to any history of the movement. And the comment above about "no egotistical bone in his body" is 100% true. If Rich Stallman wrote his own stub, would we be having this conversation? The entry is brief and to the point, and simply a jumping off point for others to expand upon. -- Becky Waring. Bwaring 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
Note: Anon's 4th edit; registered user's first was to sign this comment.
  • Keep Len has been a quiet yet effective advocate for free software since the free software movement began. Although they may be less visible, his contributions are at least in the same league as many of the other people with pages from the FSF entry. WinTreese 02:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
  • Keep and Expand As noted elsewhere, Len has been a major, effective contributor to the cyber community through his quiet work behind the scenes in many organizations, not just the FSF. A trivial bio does not do justice to his efforts; a more complete description would make his role more obvious. -- Jim Duncan JNDuncan 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
  • Keep and Expand Without Len and his contributions, the FSF would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much as it has. Ambar 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Free Software wouldn't be where it is without Len. He's the unsung hero of the FSF, often bringing sanity and balance to the organization. The FSF is one of his more visible roles, but Len has contributed significantly in many other spaces, and has done a lot to make the world a better place. stephen g. wadlow 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's only edits are to this debate.
  • Keep and Expand Len was the quiet polite face of the FSF in it's founding years. He did a lot to get it going and got little credit. The page should be alot longer, Len is very modest about his contributions. Rob Robertson. Remarquian 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's 2nd edit.
  • Strong delete. Doesn't like fame, but creates his own article? (see his website for similar evidence on modesty if you feel that to be a criterion). And maybe I'll write an article about myself and then get all my friends to create new user accounts and oppose its deletion when the time comes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not he is modest or likes fame is irrelevant to whether or not we should have an article on him. He is clearly notable, and an important subject in his field. No, I do not know him from anywhere. And no, I did not join Wikipedia 3 days ago, you're welcome to look at my contributions if you so choose. As for your claim that the keep votes are nothing but accounts created by his friends for the fact, a quick look at user contributions easily disproves that: myself, lile, Ambar, Ohconfucius, MCB, TruthbringerToronto... In fact it's funny you should mention "most keep votes" in your edit summary, since except for yours, all votes so far have been to keep ;) Capi 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Lack of notability per WP:NOT (from my NPOV on this, his work doesn't merit any of the criterion for notability), violation of Vanity and Autobiography policies. However, unless the person tallying up this AFD does his work, the legion of first-time users and Len Tower friends coming to vote keep might end up turning this into an undeserved WP:SNOW job. Seems Mr. Tower, facing deletion for his self-bio, drummed up his fellow computer nerds to climb the barricades. I would think, for a self-bio, Mr. Tower could have at least written something longer than a pithy two-line stub. After all, most self-bio vanity articles here are poorly written, unwikified, and often long-winded. —ExplorerCDT 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Most of the 10,300 google hits for "Leonard H. Tower" [13] are his contributions to way too many mailing lists, or webpages/documents he's signed. Google should not be taken as an account of this man's notability, because his google presence, like this article is self-generated. Further, a search for "Leonard H. Tower"+"Free Software Foundation"[14] bring up 517 hits, and "Leonard H. Tower"+"GNU" 699 hits [15] comprising chiefly of GNU's own newsletter, many e-mail list/group posts, and nothing else. No one outside of himself and his own circle have written anything regarding his contributions to GNU or FSF. Big reason why he fails the WP:NOT test. —ExplorerCDT 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I searched for sources on Leonard Tower, and couldn't find any reliable ones. I think we can source that he was a director of the FSF, but as it stands, that isn't enough of a reason to have an article. He has done so well at not promoting himself, I can't find any good sources about him. However, if anyone can produce a source that says anything beyond the basics about him, I would support keeping. I don't mind having a stub if it can grow, and I think he's notable, if sources can be found. Mangojuicetalk 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Mangojuice. JoshuaZ 18:28, 15 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funoon

This page fails WP:WEB. It has an Alexa ranking of ~4.5 million and most of the results on Google are for people names Funnon. --Supermath 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- As far as I can tell, nothing in the article indicates that this journal even has a website, so I don't see how WP:WEB is relevant. However, the article about the journal's publisher spells this "Fanoon" and I'm convinced that both are probably problematic transliterations from Urdu. It certainly claims notability; I'd like to see some references that actually establish that notability. Geoffrey Spear 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- I tracked down a solid reference in English and added it to the article; this is clearly a notable publication in the Urdu-speaking literary world Geoffrey Spear 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geoffrey. I could track down a few more Pakistani newspapers and websites refering to the journal as a prestigious literary journal - [16], [17], [18], [19]. A thing to note may be that the paper was started in 1962 and is located in a part of the world where not having a website is not a big deal and may not signify anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:40, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCulture.org

nn websites. alexa 672,000rank D3bv1 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: D3bv1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Also, this seems to be more of an organization than a website.--W.marsh 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - reasonably prominent NGO-type group with significant involvement in multiple prominent issues. This resembles a bad faith AfD nomination. My Alt Account 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: : I've seen several nominations like this lately. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to abstain since I am largely responsible for writing this article, but I would like to say that if there is something wrong with the way the article is written and/or sourced, I'd welcome everyone's help improving and making it more encyclopedic. I think deletion would be a little harsh. --Skyfaller 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is practically db-club. "Significant involvement in multiple prominent issues" means much less than Alexa rankings. I've never heard of them, so delete. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, most indications of notability trump alexa ratings, except when the subject is a website, which is not really the case here. "I've never heard of them, so delete" - if I could enforce this criterion, only 10% of WP's content would survive (and as we all know, the actual amount of salvageable content here is at least 25%) My Alt Account 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have to agree with W.marsh, this is more of an organization than a website, despite the name of its primary webpresnce. Applying WP:ORG, I find that the organization has a verifiable national presence and is thus notable. By the way, I find this whole nomination to be disquieting.-- danntm T C 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an organization that's as Wikipedia as anything. Where better for it to be listed? --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a fascinating history of students fighting Diebold, and I just went to a meeting of a student-led free culture group on another campus. If delete, how about merging this page with the Free Culture movement page? Which seems largely about Wikipedia now, but could be about students struggling against voting machine hijinks as well. -JustinHall 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Justin! Glad to hear you made it to the USC chapter's meeting :) With all due respect, merging this article with Free Culture movement would be counter-productive, because people continually conflate this student organization with the movement as a whole. Merging these two pages would only perpetuate this error. --Skyfaller 07:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly with cleanup). Referring to it as a website and measuring it by Alexa is disingenous. It quite clearly states that it's an organization, and that ".org" is merely part of the name they were incorporated under. It even makes reference to its website. Websites don't have websites!  :) As an organization, the article seems to assert its notability well enough. -- Xtifr 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) as a guideline for determining notability. I think FreeCulture.org should count as notable by these guidelines, although Free Culture Swarthmore as a local chapter might not. --Skyfaller 14:46, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Madonna films

Listcruft.--Zue 03:44, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artifact (Stavanger)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adetola Faminu

Possible hoax. No Ghits [20] which does not mean much but is troubling. In any case unreferenced and probably unverifiable. WP:BIO probably applies as no trace of a reliable source to back it up. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax unless a reliable source emerges, which seems unlikely. --W.marsh 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if it were real, and he were notable, don't you think google would dig up 419 spam emails claiming to be from him? ;-) My Alt Account 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should note that the talk page of the article has some very very weak evidence that this is perhaps semi-legit. But the whole concept of a Nigerian prince with a lost brother on the US east coast does not make any sense. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly any context, hardly any assertion of notability (it should be noted that in many West African cultures, virtually every clan leader is referred to in royal terms, meaning that this is probably one of thousands of Nigerian "princes"), and no verifiable sources. Dylan 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 07:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably a hoax. Blankable as unverified. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a possible hoax. Even if not a hoax, fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --MCB 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said on this article's talk page, there are lots of these Yoruba regional kings, almost all of whom are going to be pretty difficult to verify with Google. That said, without being able to find anything more specific than evidence that a Cheif named Adetola was made a regional king (may or may not be this guy), I really don't see how we're going to be able to verify this one through reliable sources. I hate to have to see a Nigeria-related article go, because we really do suffer from a lack of them (see WP:CSB), but I don't think that we're going to find enough evidence to keep this thing. From the article, we can't even tell where this guy is supposed to be from, and he isn't mentioned in any of the Nigerian national newspapers whose archives I checked. That alone ought to raise questions of notability, since local cheifs frequently make national news. So, regrettably, I find myself having to vote delete on this one. It would be nice if the closing admin would not prevent recreation in case we're able to confirm this person's notabilty (or even existence) later. ergot 14:16, 12 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. Punkmorten 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hernandez (photographer)

Article does not demonstrate notability sufficient for the terms of WP:Bio SteveHopson 04:05, 11 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Holly

This article is about a musician with claims to notability including Grammy Award nominations ... the problem is, most of these claims are unverifiable.

This article has been up for deletion twice before. The first time, it was deleted. After that, it was created in the Wikipedia namespace for some reason, then moved into the main namespace and nominated for deletion again, where it was closed as a "no consensus keep". In response to the "no consensus keep", I added {{fact}} templates to the article in hopes of encouraging the subject's fans to improve the verifiability of the claims. However, that was over three months ago, and nobody has made a single edit to the article since then until it was nominated for AfD.

As to the substantive claims in the article, Pete Holly's web site says "-4-GRAMMY NOMINATIONS FOR "PETE HOLLY III"- -INCLUDING ONE FOR THE VIDEO "HEART OF GOLD"-in 2006-" yet his name never appears on the most recent year's list of Grammy nominees. The article only claims that Holly has "received 4 first round nominations from "The Recording Academy"" but there is no such thing as a "first round nomination" in the Grammys. Entries to the Grammys are screened to determine eligibility, but the Grammy web site explains that "The purpose of screenings is not to make artistic or technical judgments about the recordings, but rather to make sure that each entry is eligible and placed in its proper category." [21] The only recordings that can be considered "nominees" for the Grammys are those which make the final five choices in each category, which I don't believe Pete Holly has ever done.

Maybe Pete Holly really does meet one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria, but the article really needs verification from reliable sources, because I have never seen a musician's web site blatantly lie about his receiving Grammy nominations in the same way that Holly's does. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 11 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. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCfamily

Google search turns up nothing useful. Fails WP:WEB. Article's author keeps taking the prod tags off. Sparsefarce 04:24, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Codename: Kids Next Door

An indiscriminate collection of references to other fictional works. Fine as part of an article, but not as a standalone. Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! Cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft. Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Cruft cruft cruft cruft! GarrettTalk 04:35, 11 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. Mangojuicetalk 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset (In Death)

Minor character in the In Death series of books by Nora Roberts, not notable enough to have his own page. Additionally it is already included in a In Death character profiles at In Death Characters#Summerset --ImmortalGoddezz 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I originally listed it for speedy deletion before the character bio article was created, given the differences in spelling somerset and summerset I opted to list it for deletion rather than be bold and create a redirect.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a hoax. Teke (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conde du Venz, Count of Venz

I don't believe this is real. I think it is basically a hash of unrelated sentences or paragraphs from the 1911 Britannica or elsewhere. Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 11 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 deleted by Extreme Unction (talk · contribs) and Alphachimp (talk · contribs) (presumably as nonsense and non-notable). --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogman

Dicdef, unencyclopedic, possible original research Djcartwright 05:46, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Onit Vazqueztell

I don't think true assertions of notability have been made, and this author does not appear to be actually notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 11 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. Speediable under WP:SNOW, I'd say. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The swordfish

tagged for importance, linkless, and unsourced - appears to be a ficticious work -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 05:54, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haberl hut

Not evidently very notable; appears more like a page from a travel brochure than anything remotely encyclopedic. Djcartwright 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge into Mountain huts in Canada or there may be enough information to be split into Mountain huts in Alberta and Mountain huts in British Columbia (I'm referring to all the other Canadian mountain hut articles in addition to this one). These buildings provide shelter for thousands of hikers and mountaineers each year. Some of the "travel-speak" can probably be trimmed if the articles are merged. These are not sub-stubs and contain verifiable content. How can these be less notable than articles on radio towers and transmitters or for petes sake all the highly questionable (IMHO) primary school articles. If merged, all the hut names can have redirects to the new article(s). RedWolf 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as RedWolf suggests. It's already notable, and as ghoti notes, it will have more published references as books are updated. Since it is short, it would make sense to merge it, but keeping as is seems fine to me as well. -- Spireguy 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, so that I don't keep spending time creating pages that get nominated for deletion 30 seconds after creation, can you point me to the page the contains the definition of "notability" you're using? I was going by Uncle G's criteria, which states that notability is objective and measurable, but that's obviously not being being used here, or we wouldn't have to vote. Thanks.  ◉ ghoti 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't be so negative about voting/consensus/discussion per se (since even "objective facts" can be disagreed about by imperfect humans), I agree that it is important that people have rationales. The only rationale given for the original deletion proposal was that it seemed "like a travel brochure". Since the article is about a structure that is used for recreation and a base for travel in a certain area, I have a hard time imagining an article about it that wouldn't sound a bit like a travel brochure. Facts like how many people can sleep in the hut, for example, could be considered "travel-speak," or they could be considered very pertinent information about the structure.
I would like to see more about the connection to Jim Haberl, and any special circumstances regarding the funding and construction of the hut, since those would increase the value of the article; and whenever print sources become available, those would of course be good references, further nailing down the notability. But I do find it weird that this was nominated for deletion so quickly. What's the hurry? This is not commercial spam or a personal attack. -- Spireguy 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For situations like this, I like the essay WP:HOLE. This hut exists. Okay. Why should I care about it? What makes it so special that it should have its own article? Why couldnt it fit within a larger article on mountain huts in Canada? Resolute 23:09, 16 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neomorph

Neomorph (in terms of linguistics) is an unrecognized neologism; it's in no dictionary and google scholar brings up no results on the term in relation to linguistics. Nothing is cited to back up claims. AEuSoes1 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) AEuSoes1 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - for my part, all I can tell is that the article's creator follows the usual pattern that is seen in hoax articles. The nominator here appears to have some pretty substantial knowledge of linguistics. I hesitate to vote this far outside my expertise, but if I had to choose, it'd probably be delete. My Alt Account 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of several linguistics articles that the author, Nimic86 (talk · contribs), has just added. Xe asserts on Talk:Neophone that "There's always plenty of room for brand new terms which serve perfectly useful purposes.". Wikipedia isn't for promoting brand new linguistics concepts that one has just made up. And this is one such. There are no sources that describe this as a concept in linguistics.

    A neomorph is a concept in genetics. See Kiss E, Heszky LE, Gyulai G, Horvath Z, Csillag A (1991). "Neomorph and leaf differentiation as alternative morphogenetic pathways in soybean tissue culture". Acta Biol Hung. 42 (4): 313–321. PMID 1841482. for example. It is, to quote Webster 1913, a "structure, part, or organ developed independently, that is, not derived from a similar structure, part, or organ, in a preexisting form".

    This article used to redirect to mutation. It's debatable whether that is strictly the correct place, given what Webster 1913 and Abraham D. Krikorian; Liisa Kaarina Simolasays (February 1999). "Totipotency, somatic embryogenesis, and Harry Waris (1893–1973)". Physiologia Plantarum. 105 (2): 347. doi:10.1034/j.1399-3054.1999.105221.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) both say. Either revert to the redirect or delete. Uncle G 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research. Djcartwright 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, neologism. My Alt Account 19:23, 11 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 Already deleted earlier. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neophone

Neophone is an unrecognized neologism; it's in no dictionary and google scholar brings up no results on the term. Nothing cited to back up claims. AEuSoes1 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) AEuSoes1 06:11, 11 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. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'remier league

While this was cleaned up a lot from the one I nominated for speedy deletion, it remains unencyclopedic and not notable. Djcartwright 06:03, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New World Thorndon

Although I shop at New World myself (a different branch), I don't think we need articles for individual branches of supermarket chains unless they are truly notable. This one ain't. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 11 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 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Thiele Bibliography

The WP:PROD I placed on this article was removed by its author, so I have brought it here for wider consideration. Article should be deleted per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no precedent I'm aware of for such an article, and we should be especially wary about creating one. cj | talk 06:28, 11 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. Mangojuicetalk 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Range Studios

This article is about a small, non-notable graphics company. It is maintained by a single user and reads like an advertisement with no critical insite or references. It sets a bad example for any small start up with a few web films who wants to use Wiki as a free billboard. James Gordon 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)(This nomination was this editor's first edit)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Also delete the unnotable film The Meatrix from the same people. DJ Clayworth 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Full Disclosure: I am a Free Range employee. Free Range might not be a name as well known as the larger communications firms Porter Novelli or Fleishman Hillard, which both have entries here in Wiki, but ask almost any non-profit organization with a presence in DC, and they will know Free Range. They will know the Meatrix. In the world of non-profit advocacy, Free Range has and is playing a significant role that's worthy of notation here in Wiki. In this sense, Free Range is not "non-notable." By putting our entry up on Wiki, we embrace the idea that anyone can edit our entry. We hope they do. But by removing our entry, I'd argue we're missing documenting an important player within the heart of America's progressive non-profit community. -- Susan Finkelpearl, Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006, 9:47 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfinkelpearl (talk • contribs) .(This editor has only contributed to this AfD and the article under consideration)
  • Keep.I'd like to comment in defense of this article and the signifigance of Free Range Studio's presence in both the non-profit world and the popular culture world. From the definition and guidelines of the Wikipedia Notabillity article for Company's and Corporations: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Free Range article has been updated with over a dozen citations and references from independent, non-trivial sources discussing Free Ranges' works. A google search of Free Range Studios will yield hundreds of articles discussing Free Range and its work. These hits range from major news papers and film festivals all the way down to personal blogs and online forums. Clearly there is a large and independent interest in the notable work of Free Range. The Meatrix created an internet viral phenomenon, was viewed over 10 million times and won a Webby Award in 2005. [28]Eriq Wities 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wities (talk • contribs) .(This editor has contributed only to this AfD, the article under consideration, and closely related articles)
  • Keep. In addition to the posting above, I'd like to also comment in defense of this article. As a person rather well-versed in the non-profit technology community, Free Range has clearly met the Wikipedia standard of "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". A huge number of individuals in in the progressive non-profit sector has been touched by one of Free Range's works, including Store Wars which has been published and commented on by everyone from About.com to Business Week. To delete this entry would be slap in the face to the non-profit community. -- Ryan Ozimek, Monday, Sept. 4, 2006, 18:32 EDT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.164.47 (talk • contribs) .(This comment is this editor's only edit)
  • Comment. I'd like to now point out that user "Eriq Wities", who is defending this article, has also created an article about himself. This Free Range is a virus spreading non notable articles. I believe it needs to be stopped now. Please vote delete on this article as well as on the deletion page I've created for Eriq Wities. Thank you. --James Gordon 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Every single commentor so far, including the nominator, with the exception of one Delete vote by actual user DJ Clayworth, has contributed only to this AfD or related articles. So I think we are starting with a clean slate, here. Are there any disinterested parties willing to take a look at this? Herostratus

  • Delete Currently it's spam that fails WP:CORP with some tinges of WP:VANITY as well by the employees working on the article. 205.157.110.11 07:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After initially being skeptical, having read the entire article and going through the sources I can say say this is a notable company that passes WP:CORP. It needs a NPOV rewrite though as in some places it reads as if it was written by someone who works for the company. VegaDark 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Strong Rewrite - per VegaDark. Marginal on the usual WP:CORP criteria but the company's projects appear exceptional. My Alt Account 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not shown. Sock/meatpuppetry suggests spamming intent behind article. --Nlu (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article reads like it was written by an advertising firm. It's clearly not WP:NPOV and it looks a lot like WP:ADS. Many of the claims lack verifiability and could be considered original research. It's not very encyclopedic. Publishing both a "Mission Statement" and a "Vision Statement", in addition to a listing of employees and an accompanying image, all seem a bit WP:VANITY. It appears that this company has produced some interesting material, but so have countless other advertising firms around the world. I'm not seeing anything particularly distinguishing here, despite the numerous examples of WP:PEACOCK used to describe their work. If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If this guy is the Persian version (oo, rhymes) of P-diddy, the article can be recreated when it can be verified. Re:Mubed, that wouldn't be a move, that would be a different article. I encourage you to create it. Mangojuicetalk 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad

Biography of a non-notable person. Not enough personal information to be considered as a biography. Commercial form of representing the person (unencyclopedic). Insufficient evidence like links to the works, make this person notable, or sources mentioning this person. Repeted removal of {{subst:prod}}. Mubed 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I think more research will need to go into this. There is a claim for notability and for all we know this guy could be the Persian version of P-diddy. Currently it's unreferenced and far from a perfect state but if notability can be established then it's worth keeping. 205.157.110.11 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. If "9 successful albums" is anywhere close to true, he's easily notable. I would be slow on the trigger with this one, especially as the original author seems to be familiar with contemporary Persian musicians but very unfamiliar with English wikipedia :-\ My Alt Account 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I googled him a bit. Anything written about his biogrphay is taken from his official site and so you can't know if it's realy true or not, well that's the story he has told! I didn't find 9 albums but 6. There was no information about how successful they were, but none of them was listed in any top 10 or something like that. It lookes like, he was not a very successfull singer in the past, but he got famous after singing together with Googoosh (the most popular female singer of Iran). I found also something about his family: "Mehrdad AsemAni left his 1 year old daughter (Maahak) to be with his gf (GooGoosh). Mehrdad's wife (daughter of a rich iranian merchant) took her daughter and left him to Iran." [29]
  • Move Another point is, that "Mehrdad" is a popular persian name, with relativly old history. There were some important kings in persian history who were called Mehrdad (M. I, M. II, ...), so the first content which is associated with this name is some historical persons like Cyrus and Darius. Dariush is one of the most popular iranian singers, but you won't get any information about him on Darius. The same is with "Amadeus". No-one has written an article about Mozart and called it "Amadeus", although he may be the most famous "Amadeus", so an article about Mr. Mehrdad Asemani, who is not even the most popular and well-known "Mehrdad" shouldn't also be called Mehrdad, but "Mehrdad_Asemani". See also de: Mehrdad. Mubed 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiable evidence of notability provided.-Peta 04:47, 19 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. El_C 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Coast Railway

Fails WP:NN, non-notable place. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page replaces poorly capitalized "Pacific coast railway"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magreaux dog

Very minor (3-strip) plot arc on the webcomic Achewood. Originally I suggested a merge, but seeing as it ended up being such a minor part of the strip, it's not even worth mentioning in the Achewood article. See Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, after which this "character" is gone. Only 17 unique Google hits for "Magreaux dog," and they're all bulletin boards or blogs/myspaces referencing Achewood. -Elmer Clark 07:16, 11 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 Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits on the Radio & Records CHR/Pop Chart (U.S.) and subpages

Before all of these are created, we should probably figure out whether annual charts are notable and not copyrighted. (The charts for 2005 hold the copyright notice © 2006 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved., terms of use here). This AfD does not include the entry on Radio & Records itself, which should be notable, but all annual charts created as subpages. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:20, 20 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. I was going to say merge, but then I looked at the wonderful Ohio State University article and didn't want to ruin it with a merge from this article. The content is basically just a two-line description and a bunch of external links, anyway. If someone wants to include it in another article, do so. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebMediaCollective

Contested prod, does not seem to be notable outside OSU. MER-C 08:02, 11 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 06:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Traffic Manager

Subject is a non-notable software product authored by a single individual who appears to have a connection to the product's company NetUP. Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS Justin 08:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that the above was by the author of the article. MER-C 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete the article. I'm very tired to explain to everyone that this is not spam, this is not an advertisment because nobody can find the article without knowing its name a priori. Please, stop defaming me and the article by messages as "delete this spam" as I'm a real author, and the software is well known among ISP and Telecom companies. It is popular among huge ISPs because of it's phenomenal performance. Or just delete it at all, with all the detractive messages, I didn't suspect such behavour of Wikipedia members. Regards, Konstantin Emelyanov
Comment This is not completely accurate. There is an internal link to this article from the UTM disambiguation page which has been deleted twice and reverted twice by the author of this article. Whether the subject of this article is popular among ISPs or not, it clearly does not meet the definition of a "notable company" as described on WP:CORP Justin 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the comment: This comment is not that exact. The author of the comment doesn't possesses the full information, he doesn't know the exact reason of deletion and doesn't know what was happening after that.
Comment: The reasons behind this request for deletion were the failure to meet the notability criteria in WP:CORP and the appearance of an advertisement masquerading as an article, see WP:ADS. The article also fails to cite any sources, it has a single editor, and as such, it appears to be original research. It certainly lacks any sort of verifiability of claims made in this AfD discussion, such as "huge ISPs" and "phenomenal performance".
The request for deletion is not a personal attack. It is not a statement on this product or the work of User:Konstantin_Emelyanov. He appears to be a new user and may not be fully familiar with certain policies, particularly regarding the AfD process (see user talk page). If there is any way the article can be modified to be in compliance with content policies, in good faith, I will support keeping it. Justin 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment to the comment: Information about the partners is available on the original Russian web site of the company: http://www.netup.ru/teh_partners.php , http://www.netup.ru/biz_partners.php . You may contact the company and ask questions in order to check whatever you need. Also, please see the certificates, which are legal documents granted by the ministry of communications of Russia. If this is not believable, ask about that in the ministry. The scanned certificates may be seen here: http://www.netup.biz/certificate.php. There may be also seen some technical details. If you need any other info, please contact the company. Best regards, Konstantin
  • I can't tolerate this criticism any more. Why are you so captious? I thought that anyone can publish an article in Wikipedia. It's very easy to criticize whatever another man does. Ok, let's delete it instead of improving the content. Come on! You have created real public legal proceedings here. Let's proceed to the execution.
  • Delete nn software.--Peta 06:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cannot be advertisement because of the article cannot be found without knowing it a priori. These two articles (User Traffic Manager, NetUP) are linked one to another. But there are no other external links, that's why this is a loop system. What is the problem, I can't comprehend? Konstantin
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The burden of WP:CORP has not been met. It's not policy, but no good reason to ignore it has been provided. Mangojuicetalk 16:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetUP

Subject is an advertisement for a non-notable software company. Google search returns other companies and products with the same name and a number of questions posted on message boards which are remarkably similar to each other. Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS Justin 08:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This company's product User Traffic Manager is also nominated for deletion. It was a Google search for that product which returned the multiple message board postings with similar wording. Justin 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete the article. I'm very tired to explain to everyone that this is not spam, this is not an advertisment because nobody can find the article without knowing its name a priori. Please, stop defaming me and the article by messages as "delete this spam" as I'm a real author, and the company is well known among ISP and Telecom companies. I didn't suspect such behavour of Wikipedia members. Regards, Konstantin Emelyanov
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cannot be advertisement because of the article cannot be found without knowing it a priori. These two articles (User Traffic Manager, NetUP) are linked one to another. But there are no other external links, that's why this is a loop system. What is the problem, I can't comprehend? Konstantin
  • Keep WP:CORP is only a guideline, Wikipedia is not paper Markovich292 05:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the article "NetUP also contributed to popularization of Linux in Russia". If this is correct the company is can be notable but only if the effect was enough to create a verifiable source for this. Until then there are thousands of software companies in Moscow and, until something comes out to show that this one is special, I'm afraid the article should be deleted. --Spartaz 23:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Information about the partners is available on the original Russian web site of the company: http://www.netup.ru/teh_partners.php , http://www.netup.ru/biz_partners.php . Also, please see the certificates, which are legal documents granted by the ministry of communications of Russia. The scanned certificates may be seen here: http://www.netup.biz/certificate.php. Best regards, Konstantin
Comment I'm not disputing that the company exists or that your software is registered in Russia so neither of those links is particularly helpful. Lets go back to notability and you providing some independant verification of the assertion that your company is "popularizing Linux in Russia". Cpacibo! --Spartaz 16:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. NetUP has developed several opensource projects: http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/ndsad/ ; http://sourceforge.net/projects/get-xyz . Linux Live CD was sent more than 3,000 times, its image was downloaded more than 7,000 times (totally more than 10,000 times). Yours, Konstantin
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bib2x

Non notable new software, fails Wikipedia:Notability (software), only 273 Google hits (64 distinct ones, 47 excluding Wikipedia links) Fram 08:42, 11 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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Act 1886

I believe this article has been created in error, see Talk:Reform Act 1886, and 1886's Acts of Parliament Kurando | ^_^ 08:42, 11 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Knight

Disputed prod. Autobigraphy. Does this guy satisfy Wikipedia notability criterai? -- RHaworth 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Ohé en Laak, their location, as I've already merged all the info in this article to there. --- Deville (Talk) 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walburgia

Walburgia plays in the zesde klasse, which is only the ninth league in Dutch football, and the seventh league in Dutch amateur football. This club is about as non-notable as it gets. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 08:56, 11 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 -- bad faith nom. The JPStalk to me 13:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Saifullah Khan

A.M Khan nominated this article on the page but did not complete the process. I'm listing it for him. -- The Bethling(Talk) 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Speedy DeleteAs this article is 90% unreferrenced and based upon lies, I plea for it's deletion. Please, discuss and look forward for an appropriate action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A M. Khan (talk • contribs) .[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAMCO Monitoring Glossary

Non-notable e-book (?) about structural monitoring. No Google hits except Wikipedia and SAMCO itself, no reliable sources given. May be WP:SPAM. Was already speedied as a copyvio, but claimed to be released under GFDL, "as confirmed by permission sent to Wikipedia with number 2006062810005608." Delete Huon 09:41, 11 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 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Tangstad

Probably a hoax or autobiography, no verifiable facts

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounted Truth

Protologism, fails WP:NEO, Google shows only two uses with the article's meaning (the samco.org hits, obviously related). Was twice deleted as copyvio, but claimed to be released under GFDL, "as confirmed by permission sent to Wikipedia with number 2006062810005608." Delete --Huon 09:53, 11 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 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PayPlay

Advert for non-notable company. --Pak21 10:14, 11 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 all. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Street

A mass nomination for the streets of Penn State University. These streets are non notable outside the university: some of them have been nominated for merging, and while I have no reason to oppose a merge of info (if people want that info in the main article, be my guest), I would oppose the keeping of the generic "allen street" as a redirect to Penn State University. I don't oppose the inclusion of major, famous streets (highways, major streets in big cities, Monopoly streets, ... ) but the inclusion of every street of a University campus is overkill. I'll add the other related articles below Fram 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are the articles in the category Roads in State College.

Also added:

11:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I think you are on to a loser here. Pretty-well every road in the USA appears to be on Wikipedia, even if it's entry is something like highway X is Z miles long. The precident seems to be set, so I think you're going to have to live with this little lot. Markb 13:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is quite a difference between a highway and a campus road. And I wonder if e.g. any other road in Centre County, Pennsylvania (excluding highways) has been included in Wikipedia yet, or if any other similar roads to these ones have survived any AfD yet. I suer haven't seen such precedent yet. Fram 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article subpages are not allowed, see Wikipedia:Subpages. An article streets of Penn State University could be a solution if people think it is necessary to have this information Fram 05:09, 12 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. Punkmorten 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirTODO

Sourceforge project, less than a thousand ghits of which about 170 unique. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 10:55, 11 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 speedily deleted under A7. The JPStalk to me 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Dave

I do not think it is possible to write an entry befiting an encyclopedia on this subject. —Encephalon 11:03, 11 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 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achievo

No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, 142 unique Googles [31]. Creator has virtually no history other than creating and linking this article. Guy 11:08, 11 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 Speedily deleted by Geni under CSD A7. MER-C 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jake Donnelly

Probable vanity page. Child playing in a youth football league. No indication that he, his team, or his league are notable. No Google hits. PROD removed without explanation. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 11 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 Speedily deleted by Geni under CSD G7. MER-C 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism and Freemasonry/example

I created this article to demonstrate a proposed wording for a change to another article. The issue was discussed and resolved. There is no need to have this article or its associated talk page. AfD proposed by article creator. Blueboar 13:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I tagged the article as a speedy delete under criteria G7. –– Lid(Talk) 12:43, 11 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 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BHW

An extremely not-notable backyard wrestling federation. Nonsense claims such as being the biggest PPV, hell even being a PPV alone is nonsense. Vanity article as the creator is User:BHW and may also fall under wikipedia not being for stuff made up in school one day. –– Lid(Talk) 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exception, and mainly because it was from the Hardy Boyz, but I think you would agree that in general backyard feds are not notable. TJ Spyke 21:22, 12 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 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ros Bates

This article is about a candidate who failed to get elected in the recent Queensland state election. BrightLights 12:42, 11 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. Nobody wants this deleted any more, so we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navel lint

I would say non-notable - and I would tend to lean towards the view that being the subject of an Ig Nobel Prize would tend to confirm this rather than give any basis or grounding for an article. Only sources are seemingly non-notable sites. The tone isn't exactly encyclopedic either, and I would say delete. No more bongos 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article's claims at least cursorily look correct and the sources support it. I will grant that the second link is a bit gratuitous. My Alt Account 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) -- addendum, I really don't know how to address notability with this type of content, but suffice it to say I'm not concerned. At least in this case. My Alt Account 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't see myself why it is a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Counter-arguments on the talk page have included the presence of such articles as Exploding Whale - but while this has received non-trivial press coverage, the only press coverage Navel Lint appears to have received is in connection with the Ig Nobel prize. Surely there's a reason why these prizes are awarded? If it wasn't for the prize, the first link would also be viewed as gratuitous and non-notable, i'm sure. I'm open to any valid reasons to keep, however - i'm just realising that those last few sentences could be interpreted by some as overbearing... - should I write articles on Exploding trousers; Artificial dog testicles; Television viewing by locusts, or communication among herring by farting? --No more bongos 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't the sort of subject you can evaluate based on the number of news articles. Aerodynamics, Ballistics and Capacitors get no non-trivial press coverage, but they all deserve articles. We're not talking about people, organizations, or historical events here. Happily, much of the treatment of navel lint presents no verification obstacles, since the subject matter is so near at hand... My Alt Account 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, what I should have said was "press or academic". I would, myself, immediately define a study into it which won an Ig Nobel prize as being trivial. Others may disagree, though. I do see what you're trying to say, but I still think it has no place as an article of its own. Claus Diff's suggestion to merge seems like a possible compromise, and if consensus heads that way, I wouldn't have a problem. --No more bongos 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • looks like it should merge into Umbilicus. Claus Diff 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Everyone has heard of it, and the article goes well beyond a dicdef. There's actually a lot of weird stuff to say about navel lint, both in terms of its color variations as well as the things people do with it. Zagalejo 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ubiquitous substance. Kappa 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was sure that this would be an easy article to delete, but, lo and behold, the article actually addresses the subject in an encyclopedic fashion. I guess I may lose a title for a sample article that is a sure bet for deletion, but this article should stay. Ig Nobel or not, the research was done and the info regarding the scholarly work in the field is from verifiable reliable sources. Alansohn 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know some people are annoyed at how this is turning out, and I can sympathize. But look at the bright side - there's no way Brittanica's treatment of navel lint is anywhere near as informative as ours (someone verify please). My Alt Account 16:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a verifiable phenomenon with sources provided in the article. --Whpq 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination Withdrawn - Close Please - There seems to be a consensus to keep, so to save a long, drawn-out argument, I'm withdrawing the nomination. This isn't to say that I agree with the arguments to keep - I firmly believe the consensus reached is the wrong one. This is entirely without prejudice to any further AFD, either by myself or somebody else. Nevertheless, I would like the nomination withdrawn, as I have no desire to get into lengthy arguments, or to waste editors' time with bloated AFD discussions. No more bongos 20:20, 11 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 06:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automation in Construction

A small bit of original research with no discernible encyclopedic value. cholmes75 (chit chat) 12:52, 11 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; withdrawn. MCB 06:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yua Aida

*Delete per WP:PORNBIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:00, 11 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 06:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Knox

Nominating as a previous prod was removed. I don't see how casting directors are notable. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:17, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make You Feel Better

Song stub of a rumored single. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desecration Smile

Song stub of a rumored single. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 11 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. Punkmorten 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockinfreakapotamus

Non-notable fan club, reads like an advertisement. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:33, 11 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 06:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collendina

Contested prod about a non-notable town. MER-C 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Seems like a notable neighborhood/section of a town. Has some history, no reason to think it's untrue. Meaningful Google coverage is a bit scarce though, but that might be expected for the historical stuff. [32] --W.marsh 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions -- Longhair 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep -- the place certainly exists, though I'd have to do a check on the accuracy of some of the information within. The Collendina Pub is somewhat famous among locals of Geelong though it's been years since I've been there myself. - Longhair 14:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand database has 105 hits mainly from the Geelong Advertiser. It seems to be a reasonably well known locality at least in the area. Capitalistroadster 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to town article.--Peta 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm of the opinion that a town is inherently notable, and even a section of a town if the history about the administrative split from Ocean Grove can be verified. Will need to be moved to Collendina, Victoria as per naming conventions for Australian places, and to disambiguate from the town in New South Wales [33]. --Canley 09:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere was no documentation on the internet about my town or now suburb as many see it, so I decided to use wikipedia to put a bit about the history. If you need proof of existance use http://www.street-directory.com.au it is marked on there(at detail level 5). but it is more considered by the locals to start at tuckfeild street. The infomation I have written is gathered from people who have lived in Ocean Grove longer than me. The Handshake is an actual handshake (this section was deleated, I'm not sure how many people still know it, but it does exist at least me and my friends still use it. I dont mind if that section isnot deemed encyclopedia worthy, but the histroy is definatly worthy Koikaze 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What goes into articles should be from published sources, though offline sources are fine. I doubted that the handshake thing met this criteria... but if you have a source, feel free to re-add it. --W.marsh 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a real place that exists, which is good enough per well established precedent (the Rambot stubs). The area officially called Collendina (east of Bonnyvale Rd) is small and not terribly notable because there is little development yet, although as Koikaze says, east of Tuckfield St/Grubb Rd is usually considered Collendina. Here's a link to a map: [34]. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 15 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 since already mentioned at OpenView. Mangojuicetalk 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenView Service Desk

Contested prod about non-notable software. MER-C 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HP OV SD is one of the flagship in the ITIL domain. Day by day lots of compnaies are moving towards ITIL pratice. Visit the forum http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/categoryhome.do?categoryId=160 or use Google with HP Service Desk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlyak (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boiseworker.com

Spammy contested prod. MER-C 13:49, 11 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. As the dance frenzy peaks once again. El_C 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chop-The-Snake

Neologism, bad joke - take your pick. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:50, 11 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 as A7. The JPStalk to me 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bestiality's Best Boys

Non-notable improvisational song. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:57, 11 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 06:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Kennedy

I am placing this article up for AFD at the request of its subject. As a result of malicious vandalism to the article (see OTRS ticket #2006090810001751) he has asked us to consider deleting it. In his own words:

Please express to the editors that I hate being listed on Wikipedia because of the open source policy which has caused lies to spread about me.

I have explained to him that we don't as a matter of course delete articles on notable individuals even at their request, but in fairness to Mr Kennedy I think it is reasonable for his request to be discussed by Wikipedia editors.

This nomination should not be interpreted as an endorsement either of deletion or retention: I will remain neutral in this discussion so that I can fairly report its outcome to Mr Kennedy.

--ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Quixotic endeavor here. Might as well get this over with fast. I've nothing else non-obvious to say. My Alt Account 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't make me mention slippery slope…oh, curses and black pudding, there I go… —Phil | Talk 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems reasonably well known. Tom Harrison Talk 14:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. Too many red links and external links for such a short article. If this article is a subject of frequent vandalism, it should be added to a vandalism watchlist. I haven't seen more than one instance, however, of vandalism. Bastique▼parler voir 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As an admin who has been watching the article, let me weigh in a little on it's history. And there is a good bit of deleted history to it. The article's subject is apparently fairly controversial in certain circles, and has a number of detractors. There was an edit war a while back between a strong supporter and a strong detractor. The detractor was posting some extremely derogatory material, but would provide no sourcing that would satisfy WP:RS. Several admins (including me) became involved, the page was protected, and in the end the bulk of the edits with the derogatory material was removed from the edit history. The one "vandalism" that has happened since then was of similarly derogatory material. It was quickly reverted by Dawn Horse Warrior (talk · contribs), who is at the least a strong Kennedy supporter. So in the end this is not about normal vandalism, but a WP:BLP issue, with unsourced derogatory material. Still revert on sight stuff, but a different type of "vandalism" than most are used to. - TexasAndroid 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't delete the Hitler article because he's not man of the year material --Stuartyeates 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sympathetic, but there's no way to start deleting entries on notable individuals. If he's been subject to significant vandalism, maybe semi-protection is the answer? TheronJ 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the non deleted edit war, the page was at one point semi-protected, and the detractor, who had a new-ish account was able to resume editing and warring within a day or two. So Semi protection is not necessarily useful in cases where the detractors of the subject are determined enough to wait out the aging of new accounts. As for it being "Significant" vandalism, while I'm sure Mr. Kennedy thinks that any vandalism is significant, looking in the history I see the one edit war between 617USA (talk · contribs) (Pro) and Suture (talk · contribs) (con) that lasted 4-5 days in mid July, and one more, from the 7th of September, that was quickly removed. I would not really call these "significant vandalism", compared with many other pages on the project. - TexasAndroid
The specific piece of vandalism that Mr Kennedy was concerned about was reverted within 30 minutes by another editor. I've already explained to him our unwillingness to protect or semi-protect articles that are not subject to persistent vandalism. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you could tell him, on a positive note, is that this article is not going to be subject to missed-vandalism. It is on a number of people's watch-lists, including several admins, including me. Any of the stuff like has been previously posted is going to continue to be reverted on sight. - TexasAndroid 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GWB article is only semi-protected, not full protected. Semi protection is great against casual vandals, but not that useful against determined detractors/edit warriors. All it takes to get past semi protection is 4-5 days of patience, and the account is old enough to get around it. And that's exactly what happened on the WHK page back during the July edit war. Page was semi-protected, the detractor with the new-ish account waited 1-2 days and was able to resume editing the page despite the semi-protection. - TexasAndroid 16:59, 12 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 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield ladder bug

A single bug in a computer game is not notable enough for an article by itself (only in rare cases of very notable software/hardware bugs, like the Y2K bug and Pentium FDIV bug), and the creator of the article has already added information on the same bug to the article Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield itself anyway. Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus TC 14:03, 11 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, as merging well is too complicated for me (this sounds like one of a cycle of "types" of superheroes). The history remains, if anyone cares to. Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plantopath

The term seems like a poor neologism, much like "chlorokineticist" with no source. It's also an unnecessary page which can be covered in a line for a single film with a very small mythology. Sky High lacks the complexity or notability of say, articles pertaining to areas of the Buffyverse. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:27, 11 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 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Paradoxes

Essay; original research. Does not appear these problems could be fixed. Allen 15:04, 11 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 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falkner Eggington Courts

Delete. It's a university residence of no particular importance. [Check Google hits] shows 111 hits, with 48 of them being "unique". Prod was removed by article's author with the comment "Reason for deletion didn't make sense to me. You'll see how notable the hall is once the page is finished." ... discospinster talk 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page is simply a reconstruction of the previously deleted one - see below. A redirect to Loughborough University would be far more appropriate. The precedent is the William Morris AfD; halls at Lufbra aren't notable in the same way as Oxbridge halls.
  • Do not delete Searching for "Falk-Egg", as the hall is more commonly known, gives you nearly 5000 hits, on the basis of a google search. 86.143.211.37 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Louisa[reply]
  • Do not delete I don't see what the problem is, surely Wikipedia is here with the aim of collecting and showing information. This page has been set up to provide information on the hall, which is so much more than just a collection of buildings. Also I don't see how someone who's never been there can label it as "of no particular importance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dastardly (talk • contribs)
Comment. Actually, I just searched "Falk-Egg" on Google, and it gave me 2000 hits (which I suppose is "nearly 5000"), with 160 of them "unique". And no, I have never been to Falk-Egg, but then again I've never been to your flat, but I can still tell you it's of no particular importance. Please see "what Wikipedia is not". ... discospinster talk 16:30, 11 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 all. Punkmorten 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saga of Souls

Please note: I am putting this in today's AfD log (September 11, 2006) because I failed to do so on the day that I nominated it (August 31, 2006). Thank you to Wmahan for bringing this to my attention. ... discospinster talk 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. Unpublished book by non-notable author; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod tag removed. Good luck to the aspiring writer, but it's not yet at the level of a Wikipedia article.

I am also nominating the article about the book's author: ZB Fischer. ... discospinster talk 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reasons, per Elmer Clark's suggestion:

... discospinster talk 14:47, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The-Slackers

Delete. Non-notable webcomic with no Alexa data. Article itself states that it is new and "gaining readership very slowly". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... discospinster talk 15:20, 11 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. El_C 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokhmism

Contested Prod. Per the talk page, a "totally new, and still non-formal concept." Latest new philospohy that someone wants to spread through Wikipedia. Totally fails google search. Neologism. No sources. Not Verifiable from Reliable Sources -- Fan-1967 15:27, 11 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 10:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Eider

By the request from the author I have restored the article recently deleted by Prod. abakharev 15:32, 11 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 - kept (D:14, K:12) comment: After trimming the article during the discussion to verifiable text, all objections are polarized w.r.t. notable/nonnotable. "No reliable sources" argument is moot, since the court case is clearly a public information, hence reliable and verifiable. Lacking better arguments in favor of deletion, the article stays. `'mikka (t) 04:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gurary

This article was prodded by me on August 6th, and deleted after five days. Today a couple of editors realized it was missing and sent a couple of messages to the deleting administrator. I have asked him to undelete this article per WP:PROD, which allows post-factum challenges.

This person is a son of a failed candidate for the leadership of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, Shemaryahu Gurary, and nephew by marriage of the 7th Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. And he stole some books from his uncle once. That is it. A comparison has been made between Barry here and Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia. That is disingenuous. Tsarevich Alexei was a certain heir to the throne of a nation of 150 million people. Barry Gurary was a not-so-certain heir to the religious leadership over a Hasidic movement of 50,000(?). There is no comparison whatsoever. Barry Gurary is profoundly NN. There aren't multiple non-trivial works about him, and some sources in the article fail WP:RS. Recommending Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because it was I who objected to the tactics of CrazyRussian in the first place, and now pushed to have this article undeleted, only to have it pounced upon by User:CrazyRussian again, the following refutation of his above points is required here:

  1. Barry Gurary was the only remaing male relative of the Schneersohn-Gurary-Shneerson family in his generation (note, that the 6th rebbe's name was spelled with an "h" in it, and the 7th rebbe was his cousin and that is why his name was spelled differently, without the "h"). This is very significant. Wikipedia has an article about Alois Hitler, Jr., the half-brother of Hitler. Why? The only reason which indeed makes it notable is that he was Hitler's half-brother. Period. There are many other cases like this, such as Prince Harry of Wales (what has he done that makes him notable? and it's unlikely that he will ever be king of anything!), whereby family relationships alone warrant an article.
  2. Barry Gurary didn't just "steal some books from his uncle" -- because who was to say that his uncle had a right to them in the first place. In any case the court ruled that the books belonged to the Chabad movement and not "to the uncle."
  3. It is NOT "disengenious" to compare Barry Gurary to the Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia because, as I stated, the Tsrevitch was a young kid who never got to be Czar (and what did the Tsarevich ever do in his short life that made him "notable"?) Indeed there is an entire category called Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded and Barry Gurary could fit into such a category perfectly if there were a Hasidic equivalent! When Barry was 14 (the age at which the Tsarevitch was executed by the Bolsheviks) he was indeed viewed as the ONLY heir to the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty by his grandfather, the 6th rebbe.
  4. When CrazyRussian compares Jewish statistics with Russian or world statistics he crosses all lines of logic because we are talking about Jews and Judaism and since there are only about 13 million Jews in the world, they will always be outnumbered compared to numbers in the world's general population (currently at over 6 BILLION).
  5. To claim that there are not enough works about Barry Gurary in the world is also a poor argument (how many books are there about Alois Hitler Jr?) because there are many articles relating to Judaism, and to Hasidic Judaism in particular about which there are few if any sources because the topics, while they may be of importance, remain signficant within the history of a group or as part of a sub-culture which may seem esoteric to outsiders.
  6. At the very least, the article is far better than most of the hundreds of stubs relating to Jews and Judaism.
  7. Finally, as CrazyRussian admits [36], he hadn't even heard of Barry Gurary before he came across the article, and he was also the one who submitted it for deletion [37] so the question is: How can anyone judge, let alone submit for "deletion," an article they they openly admit they know nothing about? Therefore what is the rush to have it deleted again so quickly unless there may be other POV objectives that I cannot fathom at this time. IZAK 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't be responding to this diatribe, other than to state that I am not a member of Chabad, do not care about Chabad, and don't have any tactics. As you, IZAK, well know, I do a lot of work with rabbinical bios. Whenever I see one not worth keeping IMO, I propose it for deletion. That - is - all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Crazy: Why call what is a clear logical categorical rebuttal a "diatribe" ? In any case, the issue of Barry Gurary goes way beyond the parameters of a "rabbi's bio", it touches upon a far deeper matter pertaining to how and why and at what point potential heirs to any dynasty or powerful group are marginalized and deligitimatized and sent into obscurity, if not literally executed at the end of it all. You know, as an example, if one were to adopt a Stalinist frame of mind, then Trotsky's bio is "not worth keeping" beyond tarring him as a cheap "villain," and yes I know, Barry Gurary was no Trotsky, but think of it in terms of the Hasidim who swear by family successions only when it comes to their rebbes' iron-clad rulership over them, Barry Gurary presents as big a conundrum to Lubavitch as much as the issue of Trotsky's mere existence represented to Stalinists. Think about it. And that is NOT all! IZAK 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khabad tries to let the people forget about leadership struggle for Khabad movement in 1950, and to represent R.Menakhem Mendel Schneerson as the sole candidate to the post, while there was a struggke underground which not ended up even 30 years later. As It is said, the winner side writes history. I never heard about Barry before inquirung in Rebbes genealogical table about succession line after R.Joseph Isaac death, it is clear that people outside Khabad wouldn't know the story. According to my opinion people should see different perspectives on Rebbe's messianism and immortality. Of course I recognize Rebbe's unique personality and contribution to modern Judaism.Narshavs 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading the delete justifications, it just seems that this guy is definitely 'notable', but the 'deletes' don't think he is notable to them. Definitely not trivial. --Shuki 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But He comes up often enough and he was involved in notable events. We should retrive the original article and place it as a section on his father's page.--Jayrav 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Compared with the garage bands, webcomics, dorm rooms, and other stuff that regularly comes up for deletion, notability here is no problem. No-one's aerioualy challenging the existence of enough reliable sources etc. I disagree with claims that notability has to be based on what people do. As no less an authority on notability than Sherlock Holmes pointed out, what the dog didn't do in the night is just as notable as what it did do. The consequences of bowing out can be just as historically important, and notable, as bow-wowing in. As with dogs, so with would-be heirs to the Lubavitcher dynasty. Keep. --Shirahadasha 03:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. While doing research, I noticed that Barry's case is described in several Wikipedia artices ans a notable event, and the versions differ. This article must stay for purely wikipedia's policy no forking. We must have a consistent story, don't we? Therefore it must be in a single place, referred from everywhere. `'mikka (t) 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is he barely notable (I can't find almost any of the details by google searching even on the more scandal mongering anti-chabad sites) but the complete lack of sources runs afoul of WP:BLP. Claiming he went in clandestinely to steal books with no source at all? That's such a BLP issue it isn't funny. JoshuaZ 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joshua: If Barry Gurary is "not notable" then why does the entire Lubavitch movement have a huge day of celebration ("Didan Notzach") trumpeting a secular court's ruling in their favor against Barry Gurary? As a number of people here have already pointed out, this alone deserves time for expansion and is certainly very notable in the context of the history of latter-day Chabad. IZAK 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mikkalai, seems to meet the threshold for notability and verifiability. Silensor 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. Shlomke 13:28, 18 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, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 17:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metrologic Instruments

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. Blatant spam/advertising (creator's username is "Metrologic"). Prod removed by author without comment. -- Merope Talk to me/Review me 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This entry is not spam or advertising. It is purely informational and therefore should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrologic (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Company passes every single criterion of WP:CORP, not really even worth arguing details. My Alt Account 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, page doesn't rank very high on my ad/spam meter (hey, where are all the links? where do I buy? What's your product pricing?) and the information is pretty good. Would be nice for someone to go through and add cites; anything that derives from SEC filings would be acceptable even though those are written by the company. My Alt Account 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup - I put a note on User:Metrologic's user page letting him know what good work he's doing ('cause it's true) and suggesting he pull in references (sort of cheeky, we can do it as easily as he can). I also put a {{references}} tag on the article. I think we can close the AfD now, except for the whole consensus thing. Do I hear a consensus? My Alt Account 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. The earlier version of the article (which was prodded) was much more spammy than this current version. I apologize for not noticing the change of the article in conjunction with the removal of the {{prod}} tag. -- Merope 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a fast-on-the-trigger deletionist, I think the whole thing is understandable, and anyway, no harm no foul. My Alt Account 17:09, 11 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 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gael Chauvin

Non-notable, almost no Google hits for "Gael Chauvin" + hockey. Tim1988 talk 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lincolnite 16:01, 11 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QT Inc.

This page is identical to the Q-Ray, and someone pulled information off that page to make this one. The court case that ruled the QRay was fake and the company was liable should be on one page. There is no different between those pages. This article was created a few hours ago. Arbusto 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this appears to be a split from the Ionized bracelet article to which Q-Ray redirects. QT Inc. as a company has been notable (infamous?), and received verifiable press coverage and the FTC investigation which is documented as referenced. The original editor had the references tagged, but omitted the references section. I'ved added it in. Note that the ionized bracelet article is about the type of product and includes one other competing product, so it is appropriate to have a separate article about QT. -- Whpq 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Whpq. NawlinWiki 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as the article's creator. I'm also mostly responsible for the current ionized bracelet page. QT's page was forked because the ionized bracelet page is about a type of product, not about a particular company's disreputable advertisement campaigns. I was prompted to make the page by Arbustoo's significant contribution. [38] I hate to revert people's work, so I transferred it to an appropriate page instead. Note, Arbustoo is the one who nominated this AfD! He is virtually this page's creator. –Gunslinger47 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not too sure if this is a notable company outside of its one product... And I don't mind having what I wrote deleted if it isn't notable. Arbusto 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - QT is a notable company. That's different from a reputable company. They meet WP:CORP criteria 1 for having multiple independent news articles about them. -- Whpq 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ionized bracelet, does not meet WP:CORP.--Peta 06:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on why it doesn't meet the first part of WP:CORP? With a quick search, I find find multiple Internet news sites reporting upon the initial injunction, and the recent case ruling. Here's is a published book that mentions the injunction: [39]. Additionally, you have the Mayo Clinic report which spawned the whole thing. –Gunslinger47 20:09, 14 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 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Foster (on-air personality)

Non-notable announcer on minor radio station Lincolnite 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Lincolnite 15:59, 11 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. Punkmorten 20:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of my Groin

Non-notable remix. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:20, 11 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 06:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Sun (Novel)

This is not an actual book, but an internet publication. Only a couple websites link to it, so it appears to be non-notable. cbustapeck 16:53, 11 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; withdrawing nomination per consensus below. NawlinWiki 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wayne Smith

  • Keep: If somewhat well-known especially for a celebrity's son, notable enough to at least have a short article. --Wizardman 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. His death is certainly notable for the moment: a final decision on whether he should be independent or merged won't be reasonable until the circumstances of his death become more clear. Xoloz 17:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - apparently had bit parts in some movies as well - see what develops from this. bd2412 T 18:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above or failing that, redirect to Anna Nicole Smith (which is what we usually do with deceased people if their death only made the news because they're related to a notable person). --W.marsh 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP If all these other people who appeared in reality shows have their own entries here, and they are big fat nobodies otherwise, then Smith, who in addition to appearing on a reality show is the offspring of a well known celebrity, has a step ABOVE those others.
  • Keep. If for nothing more than the irony of his death. Iamvered 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. NorthernThunder 18:33, 11 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 for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Garagem da Vizinha

badly written and non informative stub about a non-notable song by a Portuguese singer Phelan 17:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martinp23 21:51, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_11&oldid=75127510"