Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 12

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdhandley (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 12 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 11 November 13 >

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: Speedily deleted - no content, duplicates Template:Certainty. - Mike Rosoft 11:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty series

Certainty series (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The page is nothing but an article form of {{certainty}}, and was linked from there. Was tempted to speedy, but decided against. Circeus 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep as no support for deletion and nomination is lukewarm. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milemarker (band)

The band in question is sometimes difficult to perform notability searches on, and its popularity has only been weakly asserted in its article. The notability of the band has been argued according to four criteria:

  1. A Google search using the search terms "milemarker", "music", and the requirement of having at least one of the band's past record labels in the results (excluding the badly-searched label name "Eyeball"). This gave me about 44,800 results as of September 1, 2006 and 39,000 as of November 11.
  2. The Alexa ranking for their Jade Tree Records label, whose website's ranking was 273,376 as of November 11, 2006.
  3. Milemarker has toured nationally and internationally [1], which may mean they pass according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles bullet #3.
  4. Lastly, label notability. Jade Tree Records has an established mainspace article that asserts notability and has notable artists signed. By extension, it was asserted that Milemarker should be acceptable as per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles bullet #4:
Another Milemarker label, Eyeball Records, "have released albums by artists such as Thursday, My Chemical Romance and Murder by Death" (according to the label's article).

Does the community feel any of these assertions are under-supported or insufficient in proving notability? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a {{db-repost}} of material taken from [2]. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 4 refers. (aeropagitica) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final fantasy x 2 secrets

Final fantasy x 2 secrets (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Now, I know I said that I hate nominating for AFD right away, but sometimes it's obvious. This page is an obvious violation of WP:NOT a game guide. That's what the page is though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torax

Torax (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A single server in a minor web-based RPG. This isn't even done for World of Warcraft: Realm (World of Warcraft) lists WOW servers, but doesn't go into any further detail. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary day

Ordinary day (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Delete. Non-notable film made by college students. It's not even finished yet, according to the article's author. No sources can be found to vouch for it. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Liberation Army

Bergen Liberation Army (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Questionable notability, no other references to this organisation on the Internet. Cordless Larry 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep as a vandal AfD nomination by Railer 654, impersonating an editor of good standing. (aeropagitica) 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday

We all live through this day on a weekly basis. I find no need for valuable resource space to be wasted here. --Sango123 (e) 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White thunder

No sources or links for this band. The information may appear to be false. Peter O. (Talk) 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take back my accusation of "preteen silliness." That was churlish, and I apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, in light of the photographs of extremely thin young men on the band's myspace page. Darkspots 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep White Thunder is not a story made up in school one day. If this band was imaginary how would we have recorded songs? White Thunder is a real band, and a real story. The history of the band is quite interesting and the band is fairly well-known regionaly. This is an example of racism toward hispanics and death metal in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)
Thanks for pointing that out--I don't feel particularly racist about anyone or anything. I'm definitely not racist about death metal. Darkspots 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's Second Law and Scaling Invariance

Newton's Second Law and Scaling Invariance (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Smells like original research to me --Xorkl000 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport University (California)

Newport University (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by Drsalleh (talk · contribs), who's only made 3 article edits. Approved by California's consumer department (NOT education), thus must pass WP:CORP. Possible diploma mill.[3] Arbusto 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see relevant hits. Wikipedia and mirrors, and the Chronicle for Higher Education talks about "Christopher Newport University." Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass WP:CORP? How many students attend? Does it have a campus? The only place that knows of this is a divison of California Department of Consumer Affairs NOT any academic accreditor nor the Department of Education. Arbusto 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Schools which are unaccredited are in many ways only schools in so far as they claim to be schools. It isn't clear to me why they shouldn't be treated a corporations. JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acreddited simply means officially recognized. While unaccredited may mean it is not notable, it really only means it is not officially recognized, by whatever officials happen to be in charge of accrediting, not that it is neccesarily not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unaccredited doens't mean not-notable. Bob Jones University is an obvious counterexample. However, it does make it reasonable to apply WP:CORP. This university seems to fail it. JoshuaZ 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article does not need to meet every notability requirement it may fall under, only one(unless I am wrong). My stance is that while it may be a CORP, it is still a SCHOOL, and if it meets one of them, as opposed to all of them, it is fine. Yes, it is a CORP, but it is still a SCHOOL. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but we have a consensus about corporations. We have no consensus abotu schools. So it maybe makes sense to differ to the one we have an actual consensus on? JoshuaZ 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so, because that consensus was not neccesarily made with schools in mind. To be frank, it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply CORP to a school simply because it is not accredited. After all, acredited schools can be private corperations aswell, I don't see the connection. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This place is for-profit, see policies on WP:CORP. And thus, is much different a public high school. It lacks sources and notability. Arbusto 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article needs to be expanded. We seem to have an arbitrary distinction between accredited and unaccredited schools that seems to have no factual basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Newport U. would seem to be no different from any other non-public university or school. Alansohn 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A public institution must have accreditation implies notability. Unaccredited schools like Bob Jones University have established notability with the number of students and articles, etc. Do have nothing like that here? Any articles for notability? Any statistics IF ANYONE ATTENDS? Arbusto 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, most private schools are non-profit (all public are non-profit by definition), which gives them different tax stuctures and incentives. Moreover, its an unaccredited school that we can't verfiy academics nor do we have any WP:RS to write an article with. Please supply some WP:RS if you wish to expand this instead of keeping it as a two sentence stub. You can't even answer my basic question: HOW MNY STUDENTS CLAIM TO ATTEND? Arbusto 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. Notable Google hit count and commenters above suggest that our readers will look to Wikipedia for neutral coverage of this educational institution regardless of its accreditations or lack thereof. Yamaguchi先生 06:04, 9 November 2006
What are some of these links that cover this subject? Post them here. We have NOTHING to write an article with. Arbusto 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You "think an argument can be made"? Of that ghit count what are some WP:RS we can write an article with? I see forums, ads, and a bunch of other places with the "Newport University" not tied to this. Also how does this meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for all those "per Silensor" keeps: most of the Google hits returned are not about the Newport University on Newport Beach at all, but about the Cristopher Newport University. When you search for "NEwport University" California -"Christopher Newport", you already drop to 13,500 Ghits[4]. Many of those are still false positives, but you get the idea. As for the number of students: they seem to have had a grand total of 8 graduates in 1993[5], and are not listed in the COOL database[6]. As far as I can see, it is an unaccredited correspondence law school with some 10 to 15 students each year[7]. Since OCtober 2004, only two first years students passed the "Baby Bar"[8]. Apart from their own website and such statistics which prove existence (although with a very limited number of correspondence students), I am unable to find any reviews, discussions, or other WP:V sources to show any notability. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my above comment and per nom. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, but this is because of concerns over sources that indicate notability. --SunStar Net 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the school is registered with California for the bar exam [9]. It is also my understanding that Newport students can take the California licensing exam in clinical psychology and family counseling. Second, there are reliable sources available for the school, for example the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah (pay site) [10]. Third, whatever you may think of these types of schools, people are getting degrees from Newport and sometimes working in positions of authority. That can cause controversy. Stanley Blondek, an expert witness and California prison youth counselor who claimed a masters and PhD from Newport (but repeatedly failed the California licensing exam) is an example (pay site) [11]. Fourth, Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work. We should be doing articles on all schools, accredited and unaccredited. Our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a very limited start but provides no real information and is unsourced (but does include Newport). We need articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Registered with the bar examin means what? According to that page, "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." So your link means the bar has heard of this place before, but it doesn't know if its reilable.
  • You seem not particularly well informed of the requirements for admission to the bar in the state of California. Schools must fully adhere to bar exam rule XIX related to law study in unaccredited shools [12]. This requires state licensing, inspection, a qualified faculty, classroom study, library, etc. The requirements are not easy to meet. --JJay 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review [13] and feel free to provide [WP:RS]] for each criteria. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What??? California sets standards for allowing students from various institutions to sit for the bar exam and in the case of unaccredited schools, bar exam rule XIX is applicable (as indicated in my previous post). It is not up to me to "provide WP:RS for each criteria". The school is listed on the California bar exam website, meaning they have passed inspection and adhere to the clauses of rule XIX. Pretty simple really. If you believe that is not the case please enlighten us. --JJay 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people can walk in and take the test. Does American Bar Association accredit law schools: YES. Does Newport have accreditation: NO. Has this been called a diploma mill: YES. Can the California Bar Association say this provides an good/quality education: NO. Does this place meet the standards for the California Bar Accreditation[14]: NO. Does California of Bar Examiners approve or accredit correspondence schools: NO.[15] Have you given any reason why this for-profit place meets WP:CORP: NO. Arbusto 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one claimed the school is accredited. That is not at issue. Your statement that "people can walk in and take the test" is false. The school has to be inspected and must adhere to a series of requirements. That is why few schools are on the list. Your comment that the school has been called a "diploma mill" is completely unproven. Provide proof of that statement. The California Bar's non-opinion of unaccredited schools is not the issue here either. Finally, WP/Corp is a guideline that should not apply to schools for obvious reasons. The interest of these types of articles is to have background information on institutions of higher learning that are awarding degrees to people that sometimes achieve positions of authority (in this case potential lawyers, social workers, psychologists). That is inherently notable and supercedes WP/Corp and its fixation on stock prices. --JJay 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have two sources that question its academics, and no one disputes its for-profit nature. 1) Here. 2) In an article in South China Morning Post Stella Lee's article "Overseas university under investigation in Hong Kong" states "The Newport University of California which is not accredited by the American education authorities, started offering courses ... through distance learning courses." This was in relation to Newport's "classes" which "are not in the form of instruction, we just ask the students to raise their questions and discuss them with experts." This again is a trival mention in the paper, but leads use to question Newport's seriousness as a "school"
You still haven't offered any sources as to how this business meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cearly haven't read the first source, which never calls the school a diploma mill. Nor does the second source, apparently. The only person making that claim is you, but without proof. If you question Newport's "seriousness" take it up with the Bar association of California. --JJay 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) Your insisting we keep an article for a ten year old Salt Lake newspaper that calls this place a diploma mill is more of a reason to delete. That is, no one has provided any criticism in the article about its ppor quality of instruction. Thus, your link makes us more skeptical about the article meeting WP:V. The article says nothing about criticism, which is very misleading per your one article. Readers, right now, get the false impression that is place's academics aren't questionable per the one source you mentioned.
3) Lastly, as you have been told just because I added this to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean we keep it. We kept WP:V and notable unaccredited schools. One article from ten years ago does not prove notablity. Arbusto 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) While the school is not accredited, the fact that several state bodies do provide some level of recognition to the school is not only evidence of verifiability, it also goes a long way to establishing notability in the context of a university. 2) The source is independent, reliable and verifiable. There is simply no criteria that the source must be recent OR that it must be positive. "Non-trivial coverage" is timeless. As the source is provided, readers can make their own impression of the article's characterization. 3) A reminder that a school's presence on the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean it should be deleted. 4) The time has come to address the evidence of notability and get past the fact that it is unaccredited. There is simply no standard whatsoever that makes an accredited school notable OR makes an unaccredited school a non-notable target for deletion. Alansohn 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Its on a list for california's consumer division with 1800 of other unaccrediteds; hardly notable. Review WP:CORP. 2) You have one article from ten years ago. Review WP:CORP. 3) Yes. No one said otherwise. 4) Yes, notability is important. How does it pass WP:CORP? Arbusto 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments and research provided by Fram. 10-15 graduates per year is insufficient justification for an article. -Kubigula (ave) 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note to closing admin. no user who voted to retain this has provided evidence of it passing WP:CORP. According to this "university's" website ten to fifteen people "graduate" this place a year. We have no independent or verifable statistics or facts about anything. This has serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but that is false. There is no information regarding student numbers on the school's website. The link provided by User:Fram shows eight law school graduates in 1993 and is from a California education site. The school also has numerous other programs. Finally, WP:Corp is a guideline. It is entirely debateable whether it should apply to a school. And numerous valid reasons have been given for keeping the article. Regarding WP:V, as indicated above, sources exist that confirm the school, its programs and that students are eligible to sit for the bar. There are no WP:V issues, serious or otherwise, with the basic facts of the article.--JJay 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) This is for-profit.[16] How does it meet WP:CORP?
2) It is NOT accredited by the California bar as I noted above. Allowing people to take a test is different than accreditation.
3) According to the org. you are citing "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools."
4)[17] One source describes "Newport" as " A couple of clunker cars sit in the driveway of a 40-year-old brick house, which sits squarely in a commercial zone: a hardware store in back, an equipment-rental company in front and a McDonald's expanding up the street. The back yard has an old cedar fence, a rusting clothesline and an overgrown shade tree. Inside the house, a secondhand desk, some office chairs, bookshelves and a pair of torch lamps are assembled in the living room. Welcome to Newport..." Also note the title of the article.
5) Hence serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter whether the school is accredited or not. It exists and someone cared enough to write an article about it, therefore is worthy of an article. If it is a diploma mill, put this in the article. Actually, articles on diploma mills would be an excellent public service, since it would out them as such to any potential student who doesn't realise what the institution is. If it is a diploma mill, that makes it more notable than if it were just a small, unaccredited college. *jb 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to wikipedia. However, you failed to offer sources for WP:V. Can we properly assert it is a university or a for-profit diploma mill? No one has offer evidence for either. Thus, academics aside this is for-profit. How does it meet WP:CORP? Do we have enough sources to write a NPOV article about this business? I don't think so. Arbusto 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point if we can't find WP:RS and WP:V then we don't have enough to write an accurate article. And inaccurate articles should get deleted. Arbusto 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Brahmins

Telugu Brahmins (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non notable, contains information already found in Brahmin. Sfacets 02:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Appears to be a genuine topic, needs elaboration and copyediting though. Westenra 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect with/to Brahmin. Keeping the POV out of this article seems to be something that people aren't interested in, and un-doing the changes a few people have made has been a chore, to say the least. I'm inclined to say that Telugu Brahmins is little more than a self-serving fluff piece for a very small subsection of people. That said, we need an article about the Brahmin caste, and I don't see the harm in having a Telugu subsection in it. Kevin 03:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The article needs help, but the subject appears to be notable and distinct. Telugu Brahmins are one of the linguistic classifications of Brahmins described in Classification of Brahmins. Compare Kannada Brahmins. There's a corresponding category (Category:Telugu_Brahmins) and quite a few sub-groupings (e.g. Niyogi, Aaraama_Dravidulu) with their own articles. An argument for deletion or merge should make the case, with arguments grounded in the subject matter, that the article does not represent something legitimate or noteworthy. The fact that someone edited in redundant text calls for remedial editing, not AfD. -- Shunpiker 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm still not seeing where this crosses over from an arbitrary subgroup, and in to something notable or distinct. For all intents and purposes, this is no different than an article entitled "French Catholics in the United States" (e.g. a redirect to a more general cultural page), or "White-collar people from the United Kingdom who speak Welsh". Kevin 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: With all due respect, does anybody familiar with the subject matter agree? There's a real risk here that people who don't understand the cultural distinctions (I include myself) may undo the work of people who do with broad-brush analogies that don't apply. There are 80 million Telugu speakers. We're not talking about a small group of people. There aren't that many Catholics in all of the United States, let alone in North Carolina. Or people in North Carolina, for that matter. Or Wales. Or the entire United Kingdom. According to the article, the Telugu Brahmin tradition outdates the United States by some 500-700 years. Is it so hard to believe that a people speaking a distinct language might develop a recognizable tradition over such a period of time? -- Shunpiker 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've edited out the most obvious redundancies with Brahmin. P.P.S. According to this article, Brahmins make up 2% of the population of Andhra Pradesh. Take 2% of 66 million (native Telugu speakers), 75 million (population of AP), or 80 million (Telugu speakers), you get about a million and a half people.[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be an article about a regional caste/sub-caste similar to Khatris. I think it can be kept as it relates to a distinct group of a distinct ethnicity. Nlsanand 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Lots if not most of the content can already be found in the Brahmin article. This is not a sub-group of Brahmins in that they do not have a different belief system from any other Brahmin group. This is a sub group of a sub group, and doesn't merit it's own article, unless more unique content can be provided. Alot of Brahmin subgroups have articles dedicated to nothing but a list of surnames, or "famous Brahmins" whichprovide no information on the subject, and are generally unsourced. Aaraama_Dravidulu is an example of this. These articles should be amalgamated, if not in one article, then at least not disparate and vaguely connected sub categories. Sfacets 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, an argument in terms of Brahminism instead of Catholicism! Thank you! If the subgroups don't merit their own articles, perhaps they could be merged up into Telugu Brahmins? Then that article will have more unique content and Wikipedia will have fewer disparate and vaguely connected artices. -- Shunpiker 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Brahmin I agree with Sfactes, we don't have an article about Catholicism in Durham, North Carolina, do we? ST47Talk 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the main Brahmin article per above comments. It's not necessary to create subarticles for each region. --musicpvm 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup per Nlsanand. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be a very distinct and historic caste. --Oakshade 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "When in doubt ..." -- Simon Cursitor 08:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate article about a notable topic. Needs some rephrasing and citations, but is far from unsalvageable. --Czj 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a valid and encyclopedic article about a distinct and historic caste. RFerreira 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.T. Grimm

P.T. Grimm (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable band Missvain 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, per WP:V - material that doesn't meet it shouldn't be in one article or another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Turkel

Robert Turkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)

2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding

3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!

I cite:

G.A. Wells (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html )

Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )


Holding returns the disparagement here:

G.A. Wells http://www.tektonics.org/TK-W.html

Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html


4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.

I cite:

"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)

Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."

taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml


5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.


6) Holding has been published.


7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding. ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Andrew, you mean Ken, not the nominator (me). It was he who redirected it. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Thurmond

Tony Thurmond (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

NN local politician - crz crztalk 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Islands Foundation for the Performing Arts

Thousand Islands Foundation for the Performing Arts (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

NN org - crz crztalk 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Film

The Film (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-Notable band Missvain 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

drugzone

Drugzone (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

super non-notable band Missvain 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Indian Family

Save Indian Family (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Per Talk:Save_Indian_Family#Article_orginally_submitted_as_part_of_MyWikiBiz_paid_PR_blitz, this article was a MyWikiBiz creation. Its tone is that of an advertisement and its sources are unreliable. DurovaCharge! 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup:The article is horrible, but the subject is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The sources are definitely reliable, such as CNN and Indian Express, both notable news sources.However, POV cleanup is needed.Hkelkar 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "CNN" source actually looks like the IBN part of CNN-IBN, which is not quite the same as CNN. Bwithh 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless authoritative sources showing encyclopedic notability of this organization (not the issues) can be found. At the moment, there is no substantive evidence or even claim in the article or in sources provided for encyclopedic notability. Coverage by news sources, even mainstream channels with international profile, does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Authoritative sources need to be provided showing that this is an organization of substantive scope and base that actually is a social movement, not just that a group of people have formed a society which relates to a set of notable issues. At the moment the article is just a soapbox for this organization's issues, and does not show the encyclopedic notability of the organization itself. Bwithh 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if notability of organization is not proven, the Indian men's movement could be mentioned in the article Men's rights which seems to be US-centric at the moment Bwithh 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No encyclopedic notability whatsoever. Crabapplecove 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup:The subject is extremely relevant, though the article needs some refinement and objectivity. India is currently debating the new Domestic Violence Prevention legislation and such topics definitely provide a prespective. The article explores the plight of an abused minority whose existence is ignored by the mainstream Indian society.

--Landoflakes 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This true story in india , so article is must keep it - Vina Ra (vina.raj369@gmail.com

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Meegan

Conor Meegan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article is about a high school athlete with no assertion of noteability beyond local high school activities ElKevbo 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought it could be speedied but since I wasn't 100% sure I opted to run this through AfD. I wouldn't blink an eye if the closing admin/'crat/whoever-closes-AfDs speedies this deletion. --ElKevbo 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandient

Brandient (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Is this notable? It looks to me like promotional material. Any ideas? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfade Records

Non-notable record label Missvain 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birmingham Derby. riana_dzasta 08:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second City Derby

Second City Derby (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The exact same article is covered in more detail in Birmingham derby. 'Second City Derby' and 'Birmingham derby' are both the same thing, this page isn't required. I'd merge them, but this contains nothing that isn't already in Birmingham derby. Phileas 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Wai Chan

Ming Wai Chan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This article appears to be vanity material according to its history. In particular, please note the userpage content and contributions of Ming Chan (talk · contribs). Takeel 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to verify the Emmy. Would you happen to know of any good ways to verify besides Google and the website at www.emmys.org? --Takeel 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Lake 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer Online

Conquer Online (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Seems to be a non-notable game. Google does not reveal any WP:RS that would indicate that it passes WP:WEB. Leuko 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:SOFTWARE applies to this game. --Aquatics 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the notability requirements are essentially the same, it doesn't pass that either. Leuko 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the reason that I called it not notable is that I didn't see any evidence in the article it was notable. It wasn't "gut instinct," but a lack of WP:RS. Leuko 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's a good start but it definitely needs more references besides the official website/forums (although most references may be in Chinese, and if that's the case, what's the policy for references that are in a foreign language to the native language for this particular Wikipedia which is English?) --Rambutaan 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - will also change to keep if anyone shows reliable sources. At present it's a game guide (NOT a game guide?) and little else. There's not one third party reference? MidgleyDJ 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also add that I dont think notability is asserted in the article. Also if it's going to stay then much of the fancruft needs to be removed. MidgleyDJ 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Custom Search Engine Enhancement Page

Google Custom Search Engine Enhancement Page (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

WP is not a Soapbox, nor a publisher of original thought. Also was prodded and prod tag was removed with note saying I should explain why the article should be deleted (the prod tag I used said "Is wikipedia a complaint department? I think not.") Bladeswin | Talk to me | 06:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick RPG

Stick RPG (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable web game. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, Google doesn't find any WP:RS. Most of article seems to be a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick rpg. --- RockMFR 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy of Silence

Conspiracy of Silence (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable film failing the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Part of the Conspiracy Cruft Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement of The Franklin Coverup Scandal, which was completely discredited 17 years ago and wholely a creature of the blogosphere. A Google News search for the film results in ZERO results. Morton DevonshireYo 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is unreleased, too. MER-C 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wow. Just wow. delete per nom.--Tbeatty 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never released, making it kind of hard to claim notability. Brimba 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, didn't this already fail an AFD before? The film is notable because of the powerful special interests that succeeded in getting it pulled from television. Joe1141 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable unreleased film. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people who think black helicopters are following them. --Charlene 08:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice, Morton, and typical to provide no mention of or link to the previous AFD discussion. Thanks to Joe for remembering this. Also, there are no "requirements" to Wikipedia:Notability (films) because it's not a guideline because it has no consensus. Finally, Google News only covers about the last month of "news". Since this is a 1994 production, it would be rather stunning if it were considered news 12 years later. Derex 09:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to scandal article or Delete. Fails WP:V, has no meaningful cites, and no signs of any reliable sources. It was a stub at its last AfD, and its still a stub now, there's no evidence that anyone can or will expand it. The keep arguments at the previous AfD seem to mostly boil down to "I've heard of this conspiracy theory, it must be notable". "I've heard of it" is not a reliable source. Standards are higher now, and it's time for this sad little stub of an article to go bye-bye. Xtifr tälk 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and no WP:RS and WP:V sources. After the last AFD there should have been a rush to bring the article up to snuff, however I am sure someone will promise to do this again and still not. Our policies trump all, and WP:RS and WP:V are quite important ones. --NuclearZer0 15:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NF, per nom. = Crockspot 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - responding to Joe1141 above - I would say that if there's any evidence that the decision to pull the film generated significant controversy at the time by all means let us know about it - but without any references to such a controversy all I see is an unaired made-for-tv documentary which certainly isn't notable. GabrielF 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NF and nom. --Strothra 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreleased film. How many unpublished manuscripts, unvoiced thoughts and unreleased films are there in the world? As for the article, how does an "unreleased film" have a release date? Shouldn't it be an "unrelease date?" If it ever becomes notable, recreate the article.Edison 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly redirect. The article was already merged to a new draft of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article, which is a grand merger of all the articles on people/books/etc. mentioned in the whole conspiracy theory. That draft was being prepared before this AfD was opened; it has now been installed as the main article. The idea is to redirect all the minor articles, which had been subject to all sorts of conspiracy cruft, bizarre allegations, biased and weak sourcing, to the main article which adheres strictly to well-sourced facts. The film gets a couple of sentences there, which is about what it's worth. So unless there are strenuous objections I'm just going to perform the redirect along with the others (there are 3 or 4 total) and save us waiting out the AfD. Please see Talk:Franklin Coverup Scandal for the discussion and detail. --MCB 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present the Franklin Coverup Scandal article appears to referense this movie -- if that were to remainthe case, then I would "vote" for a redirect. If, however, the FCS reference is simply a place-holder which will be deleted as soon as this article is, then my view would be that this article should remain, as a means for future researchers to know what the film was, what it was (allegedly) about, and that it was never aired. -- Simon Cursitor 08:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff

Flyff (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Judging from the number of GHits, the game may be notable. Still, the article fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE because of lack of sources. --Nehwyn 13:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup — Keep as it's a very popular game. I've actually heard of this one, and have friends who play it. Needs sources, however, as Nehwyn stated. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Does read like a game guide. Will be happy to reconsider if it's sourced and cleanup begins. Shimeru 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Don't give up on it that easily. We put a lot of work into it, and admit it's too much like a guide. But tell us how to fix it instead of throwing all our work into the drain. Note the B-rank on the talk page, whoever put that doesn't think it's hopeless. Oubliette 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'll admit that I can't find any reputable reviews on it, but I do believe it is much more notable in Korea and the Philipinnes. I also spent a lot of time on the article in the past, rewritting a lot of content located above the Classes section, thus I'm a little biased. I was refraining from voting but looking at the votes now, there doesn't seem to be a strong support for deleting. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep According to a Financial Release (http://corp.163.com/news_eng/040803/040803_2269.html), Flyff was "Voted as an award-winning game by South Korea's Ministry of Culture in June 2004," meeting "Online Content" Notability guidelines per the second criteria. And as someone who has never played it, I personally found this a decent article to learn more about Flyff. However, it is written like an official guide. The "Versions" and "Updates" sections, as well as the first part of "Flying," are good examples of material that belongs here. A lot of the other material needs to be scrapped or changed dramatically--for Game Mechanics in particular, the focus should be on how unique mechanics affect players and their experience. Blue Crest 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting the "major award" criterion, but needs a major cleanup (and the source mentioned here cited in the article). The article needs to summarize the game, not go into every detail. Seraphimblade 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as stated several times, it needs clean up badly.--Niroht 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above commenters. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this one needs cleaning up, but that is not a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 23:02, 14 November 2006
  • Keep I think the nomination is a bit bogus. I hope there isn't a hidden agenda. Hu 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 add to List of songs about AfD's that were closed as Keep. Per Canley's analysis, renomination of poorly devised/maintained indvidual lists should still be ok, but mass deletion doesn't seem to fly. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about drugs

List of songs about drugs (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Arbitary, unmaintainable, incomplete and therefore useless listcruft. There is a precedent for deleting lists of songs, see here. MER-C 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is every single list listed here, for the same reasons. MER-C 07:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the list as some people have missed it (myself included) --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Birmingham, List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama, List of songs about California, List of songs about Chicago, List of songs about Detroit, List of songs about London, List of songs about Los Angeles, List of songs about Manchester, List of songs about Melbourne, List of songs about New York City, List of songs about Pakistan, List of songs about Ronald Reagan, List of songs about Seattle, List of songs about Sydney, List of songs about Vietnam, List of songs about World War II, List of songs about animals, List of songs about astrology, List of songs about automobiles, List of songs about being alone, List of songs about bipolar disorder, List of songs about childhood, List of songs about children, List of songs about cocaine, List of songs about computer and video games, List of songs about computer games,List of songs about criminals, List of songs about death, List of songs about disasters, List of songs about disease, List of songs about divorce, List of songs about dogs, List of songs about drinking, List of songs about drugs, List of songs about drugs other than heroin, List of songs about environmental pollution, List of songs about famous people, List of songs about famous people (other than politicians), List of songs about fear of death, List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians, List of songs about firearms and weapons, List of songs about friendship, List of songs about hair, List of songs about heroin, List of songs about holidays, List of songs about homosexuality, List of songs about killers, List of songs about marijuana, List of songs about masturbation, List of songs about mental illness, List of songs about money, List of songs about mothers, List of songs about new york, List of songs about new york city, List of songs about nuclear war, List of songs about nyc, List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley, List of songs about other drugs, List of songs about politicians, List of songs about prostitution, List of songs about racism, List of songs about radio, List of songs about robots, List of songs about school, List of songs about selling out, List of songs about sex, List of songs about sleep, List of songs about suicide, List of songs about tequila, List of songs about the Vietnam War, List of songs about the end of the world, List of songs about the environment, List of songs about the environmental pollution, List of songs about the future, List of songs about the vietnam war, List of songs about video games, List of songs about war, List of songs about weather

  • KeepAre you kidding me? This article is probably the ONLY useful list of songs... my sister had to do a research thing for university and she had to talk about songs relating to drugs, however she knew none! If it hadn't been for this list she would have been toast. And just because it's ARBITRARY doesn't mean it's UNINTERESTING. Crazy people! 70.51.205.175 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precident. Unmaintainable list. I would suggest nominating the rest in small blocks, as there is also precident for DRV overturning mass AfDs. Resolute 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Are we going to have lists for every song about love? death? politics? Keeping this leaves open the door for all lists of songs based on every conceivable subject. Furthermore, as Resolute mentions, it's absolutely unmaintainable and very open to original research. There are many, many songs that can be interpreted to be about drugs without explicitly saying so and there'd be NPOV and OR arguments about each and every one. Plus, the shear number of songs about drugs would make for a very, very long list indeed. Actually... aren't all songs about drugs ;) --The Way 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't even notcie the other nominations included; there really are lists for all those different song topics? That's... sad. This is proof that having one of these types of lists leads to having countless others that are just as random. --The Way 07:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! Language. --Nehwyn 13:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's inherently wrong with a list of songs? Of course a list like this would never be complete, and why should it be? What's the problem with having lists about all sorts of things anyway? They are actually very useful to those of us looking for songs about certain topics, though I do agree that they need to be verified somehow. Stephenjh 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that these lists are helpful for people looking for songs after a specific topic. Plus lumping all the lists together is probably not the best way to do it, perhaps we could just delete the overly vague or large lists. Bakilas 00:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep It's not useless; I have it on my watchlist because I used it once. Popular culture by topic and method makes for useful divisions to study it by, and that makes the lists valuable.--Prosfilaes 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unsourced and ridiculously subjective. SteveLamacq43 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are people looking for songs after a specific topic. perphaps only do a cleanup, the layour is screwed.

Patrick1982 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Do not think this should be deleted as it came in useful for myself, and other reasons given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.83.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep due to lazy mass listing - very poor form in my opinion. To the nominator: there is some precedent for deleting certain song lists in the namespace search link you provided, but there is also considerable precedent to keep in that same list - did you check them all? If not, this kind of invalidates your use of this as a justification. Please list all the articles for AfD seperately by all means, or point to an unambiguous guideline, or discussion where consensus was reached in the Village Pump. --Canley 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, Strong Keep, for the reasons given above. It is quite impossible to have a good debate about keeping or deleting articles when so many are bunched together. Some maybe should be deleted. Some should be kept. Some can be pretty well complete. Others will always be incomplete. Please close this with a speedy keep. --Bduke 01:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either all of these articles should be kept, or all should be deleted. People are arguing that there's too many up for deletion, but I don't believe this is the case. Either we're going to accept all lists of songs based on topic or we delete them all; there is no logical means of saying some song topic lists are ok while others aren't so we can't justify keeping some and excluding others. Personally, I have already stated that I strongly support deletion; this is a terrible precedent to set and leads to totally random lists that aren't worth having. --The Way 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that there is no logical means of saying some song topic lists are ok while others aren't. ---Dystopos 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that lists which would be too vague (Songs about Love etc.) should be deleted, but lists about more specific things (Songs about masturbation, Songs about killers etc.) Should be kept. Bakilas 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • 25 deleted
  • 10 kept
  • 6 no consensus, so kept
  • 2 were incorrectly listed, so the debate was closed with no action
  • 1 was merged (into this article: List of songs about drugs)
  • 1 was speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material
  • ... and one is currently running - this one.
  • Also note: List of songs about masturbation has actually survived four AfD nominations. List of songs about laziness survived one AfD, but was deleted in the second.
I figure the results would be fairly similar if this batch of lists were nominated separately, and the fact that over a third of the articles were kept (some repeatedly), should give the nominator pause for thought that mass nomination is really inappropriate and unsuitable in this case. I find it kind of ironic that this discussion is an indiscriminate listing to get rid of supposedly indiscriminate listings! --Canley 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. Nice observation. --Dystopos 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - way too indiscriminate. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the originally nominated list as unsourced and unverifiable and unmaintainable. Keep the many other lists until either (1) a general policy discussion is held and comes to some consensus, or (2) they can be nominated in small closely-related groups instead of an indiscriminate horde. Some are more focused and more verifiable than others. I'll support deleting most of them, as this is not Wikimusic nor Wikitrivia, but they should be handled with proper attention to each one. Barno 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there is nothing wrong with this list at all Yuckfoo 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the originally nominated list as above. I wouldn't mind seeing most other "List of songs about ---- " articles be deleted too, but lets take them one at a time. Crabapplecove 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of these lists are interesting and informative. A few may deserve deletion, but certainly not the main list. Also, the lists of songs about the Vietnam War, prostitution, WWII, sex, suicide, and quite a few others definitely deserve to be kept. Callmarcus 13 November 2006
  • Comment In addition, your reasons for deletion make no sense. A biography of a currently living person is incomplete, but that does not mean you should delete that biography. There are currently disclaimers are the top of all of these lists that informs the reader that the list may not be complete.
  • Keep There are lots of other things on Wikipedia that are not comprehensive. This is also something Wikipedia is pretty good for -- saving time for people looking for all x of type y. Could vote delete or merge on certain of these lists, but cannot do so when they are all nominated together. — Donama 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Keep; this one bundles altogether too many articles. please renominate individually over a longer period of time, or at least grouped in bunches of no more than a handful, grouped by theme (e.g. nomination of lists of songs about various wars). I have no opinion about the articles; it's just that in order to put some sanity to the AfD process you don't bundle bazillion and six articles with exceedingly little in common with each other in one AfD. Remember the esoteric programming languages AfD that went bazquoncs. And that "all 200 articles in the Naruto episodes category" one. If you bundle AfDs, please at least make sure it's entirely possible for an editor to take a look at each of the articles in one (quick) sitting. And finally, "precedent" there may be, but each of these still needs individual consideration. You know, like all other articles up for deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These lists are overkill. Do we need a list of songs about Birmingham, Alabama? A list of songs about specific drugs? A list of songs about famous people other than politicians? Categories would probably be more useful for some of these things, but I still would not want to see Category:Songs about Birmingham, Alabama. George J. Bendo 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, the "Songs about Mental Illness" list is excellent and I'm going to use it in my class about popular culture and mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.64.3 (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. Dakota 03:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROSE Online

ROSE Online (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable computer game. An english Google search for sources naturally would be fruitless for a game that seems to be primarily played overseas. Has entries at GameFAQs/GameSpot/IGN, which is a pretty standard measurement of game notability (or at least game series notability). --- RockMFR 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Article could use a lot of cleanup but otherwise its a notable computer game I've heard of before. VegaDark 09:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those may be notable, but what about the article in question? --Nehwyn 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SOFTWARE, "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ROSE Online is most definitely notable, being one of the larger MMORPGs in Korean, Japan, Taiwan and such. Never made it in the west but insanely popular in the east. Ben W Bell talk 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed much information that could be read as a game guide. Could use further cleanup. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edenmore

Edenmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a non-notable shopping centre that I don't think belongs in an encyclopedia. JSmith60 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closure mostly per WP:V, although WP:N concerns were mentioned as well. So article can potentially be recreated with reliable new sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romney Lyle Pearce

Romney Lyle Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod, removed because they thought they were notable enough to keep. I disagree, I don't think the claims to notability are strong enough. Was a member of several NN bands and was a POW. There were tons of POW's during WWII, being one alone does not make you notable enough for Wikipedia. I don't really see any claims that would have him pass WP:MUSIC. VegaDark 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, VegaDark, but I still have to respectfully disagree. I think Pearce's story (and perhaps your own) show a slice of life people of my generation (and beyond) may not see otherwise. JABPP 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sadly. None of this is referenced in the way Wikipedia NEEDS things to be referenced; to reliable, unrelated secondary sources. The only reference given is a book written by the subject's son, which concerns me as there could be a conflict of interest - a loyal son may be less than forthcoming about negative character traits, and may see his father as more notable than he was. Unfortunately, since that's the only reference given, there's no way to check on it. If the writer of this article could locate and provide references to Romney Lyle Pearce written by unrelated third parties (Portland newspaper archives, for instance, or the published writings of local historians) and write the article based on those sources, it would be acceptable. Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia: it has to be supported by reliable, unrelated secondary sources. --Charlene 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless verifiable, reliable sources and evidence of notability are provided by the end of the AfD process. Do not prevent re-creation, in case reliable sources are found later. Unfortunately, the present article simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, and the lack of on-line documentation for that era makes it unlikely that the article can be fixed without some moderately serious research. It will do us no harm to live without the article until (if) someone is able and willing to do that research. Xtifr tälk 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a Portlander in college, so I have access to several relevant databases. Two of the databases cover newspapers: one archives The Oregonian (Oregon's largest newspaper) and the other archives headlines in a large variety of Oregon newspapers. Neither came up with a hit for "Romney Pearce" or "Romney Lyle Pearce." They only go back to 1988 (five years after he died), but I would think that there would be at least one mention of a sufficiently prominent musician. A search through Cascade, an interlibrary loan system for universities and colleges in the Pacific Northwest, came up with no results for "Autobiography of a Father." The same with the Clackamas County and Multnomah County library catalogs. If VegaDark, an Oregon State University student himself, has never heard of him, I doubt he was very famous there either. As much as I like Oregonians, I can't see how he is notable enough for inclusion. - Pingveno 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the references to his supposed notability as a musician date back more to the thirties (which presumably would not show up in your search). On the other hand, your inability to find any reference to the book supposedly used as the sole source for all of this is far more troubling, and even raises the possibility that we're dealing with a hoax here. Xtifr tälk 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO in that it does not cite any sources. --Nehwyn 13:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:OR meshach 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pgk. MER-C 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guernica Magazine

Guernica Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Advert . Article created by user:Meakin who, I assume is the mag's Contributing Editor for fiction, Meakin Armstrong. -- RHaworth 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden crop

Golden crop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article fails WP:WEB for notability, does not cite sources, and appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This is a helpful page for all members of the game. More information will be added soon. What sources do we need to cite if we wrote it ourselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.39.124 (talk • contribs)
See WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V for the answer to your question. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have played this game a long time, it is local history around the ashford (UK)area. A lot of members who play Goldencrop have asked about the history of the game, so we decided to set up a Wikipedia page about the history and what the game does, the page is still in the making and over the up and coming weeks, will be a very useful part of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.205.202 (talk • contribs)
Consider making a webpage for it then. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. Recury 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can this be an advertisement for the game, it does not try to encourage people to join the it. All it is, is information and facts. If the site needed to be advertised why choose a site like wikipedia to do it on. This isn't advertising because you can only find a page on wikipedia if you search for it, therefore the only people who could find the page are people who already know ablout it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.209.90 (talk • contribs) — 81.159.209.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hello there. Even accepting the fact that it is not advertising, have you got any evidence the game meets the WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria? --Nehwyn 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Notice: User:04riversj had edited this page by posting another keep comment, but also by modifying some of the delete opinions expressed above so that they favoured the website instead. Since User:04riversj is a newly created single-purpose account, let us be very clear here to any other user of the website in question who may come visit: abusing this page will not help in saving the article (quite the opposite). Modifying other people's comments is considered vandalism, and when it is done on a deletion debate, it is a most serious form of it. I have reverted said edit (anyone interested may find it here) and posted a final warning on that user's talk page. --Nehwyn 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Uhm... I'd say no amount of rewriting can create sources out of thin air. --Nehwyn 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable game. It needs multiple independent sources to show it is notable. One third party source would not be enough. It sounds like a fine educational enterprise, and if it attains notability there is no reason the article could not be recreated. Edison 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!!!!!!! goldencrop deserves a discription it has over 6000 registerd users and surely thats more than double most of the viewers most of the pages on this site have had — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.38 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, that is not an inclusion criterion. Any evidence of meeting WP:WEB? --Nehwyn 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a player of the game as well as a citizen of the web, I can understand both points of view being expressed. As a member of the web community, I can understand that Wikipedia has a definite criteria that determines what should and should not be placed on it's site. Reading over WP:WEB shows me that Golden Crop does not meet those criteria. As a player of the game, I know this was not meant as an advertisement, just the expression of pride in a game that is rather unique and very fun. I hope that some or all points of the WP:WEB will one day be applicable to this unique game, but until then, I can live with the fact that a page on Golden Crop does not yet belong in Wikipedia. --MrAutomation 24.67.4.192 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:03, 14 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasDelete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Eternal

Dungeon Eternal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputed prod. This is an article on a fan-run game server with no referenced assertion of notability. Suggest deletion as a non-notable original creation per WP:WEB/WP:NOT. --Muchness 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, same reasons as first time and DRV that followed. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kootenai Valley Press

Kootenai Valley Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire article consists of the single sentence "The Kootenai Valley Press (also known as the Kootenai Valley Times) in a newspaper published in Bonners Ferry, Idaho."

This was previously speedily deleted by user:JzG with the comment "Empty article, devoid of context (and indeed content)". This article is identical to that version, but has one fewer stub template. Thryduulf 11:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guido del Toro

Guido del Toro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A blatant hoax, complete with a Photoshopped picture. GregorB 11:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel april

Cruel april (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from speedy. Appears to be a series of bios, so could possibly be split up but will need to be thoroughly checked for NPOV. Two of the people on the list have articles. Tim! 11:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - May be a notable subject, but the complete absence of WP:RS makes it a big exercise in WP:OR. --Nehwyn 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As sad or serious a story as this is, an encyclopedia is not the place for it. It is a personal account or a journal entry (or several of them), and doesn't belong here. Wavy G 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT memorial meshach 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a memorial as meshach points out -- Whpq 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete per Wavy G and meshach. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on - What makes Wikipedia great is that it is comprehensive and has the potential to include different points of view. This article is written to add to the history of the Vietnam war, that it did not end when the US withdrew in 1972. Biographies of each of these soldiers may be insignificant. But including them together is significant. This article helps depict the hopelessness of the South Vietnamese at the close of the war. My newphew was asked by his high school history teacher to write about the war from a personal point of view. He was born in this country and had a hard time finding information of that time. It will take time for me and others to add sources to the article. Patience please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.29.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: I really can't see how this is going to become a noteworthy article. The information on these suicides belongs on the bios for the persons named, if anywhere. Heimstern Läufer 15:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet as it stands, what your nephew produuced would seem to be original research. What's needed are sources to indicate that "Cruel april" is an actual event recognized as an entity. -- Whpq 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if - If you did not learn anything new about the South Vietnamese soldiers. My presumption is that you think the US had no business being over there, that the South Vietnamese should have fought for themselves and that thousands of US soldiers died in vain. Is Wikipedia so small that it cannot afford to present a few tidbits of the fortgotten South Vietnamese soldiers, so that someone might learn something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.29.226 (talk • contribs)
Hello there. Wikipedia requires that references are mentioned to verify information. Can you do that, so that we can verify the accuracy of the content of the article? --Nehwyn 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, more research - I will do more research and would add more information about "Cruel April" which is the title of a book that I have read but misplaced and will have to locate/credit. The biographies will eventually be a minor link to the total capture of the month and the rapid collapse. Thanks for your suggestions and patience.
  • Delete - Simply because the article is unsalvageable. All it is now is an essay about an event with a POV title, and perhaps one book backing it up. WP:V & WP:N- one book does not a notable subject make. This is the only Vietnam related "Cruel April" result on Google. While google results are not inherently a measure of notability, I think that this paired with my above assertions are enough evidence to think the subject is NN. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cruel April is what the South Vietnamese themselves call the events that transpired that month. The communists call it Liberation. Of course you will not see the term when you google it. I agree the article needs work. But can you find anything that ties together what happened when in the course of one month, a nation of 20 million people fell to the enemy in the span of one month.

The Vietnamese Google talks about the events that unfolded in a propaganda style. No mention of the poor South Vietnamese, of the killings and the suicides. Like I said before, this article will eventually include the totality of the month and not just what happened to the soldiers. I do have some articles from the New York Times that can back up some of the contents. The rest about the soldiers, the Pentagon did a debriefing of the South Vietnamese political and military leaders in a series called Vietnam monographs shortly after the fall of Saigon. I will cite the sources and add footnotes and references (these are in storage right now).

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/saigon/articles.html#surrender http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%E1%BB%B1_ki%E1%BB%87n_30_th%C3%A1ng_4,_1975

The term is still not notable. Name a source which refers to the withdrawal or suicides as "Cruel April." --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 03:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.yale.edu/seas/bibliography/chapters/chap9.html. Several authors (politician/soldiers) recount their hardships and include the names that I included in the article.

No, you don't understand. We are not talking about the notability of the people (if they are notable, they should be separate biographies). You specifically lumped all of these suicides into a name called "cruel april". If this term is notable, then the article's title is appropriate. Otherwise, the article should be deleted, and the people in the article should be evaluated for their notability. If they are notable, a page may be created about them. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20] - How about this?

Thang Tu means April, Chuyen Buon means Sad/cruel stories. This is a well known poem about the last days.

Uh, the page says "black April". But regardless, you need multiple sources, not just a poem which may or may not be about the term (see WP:NEO). I suggest at this point to go find sources for the other guys (one of them got AfD'd but it looks like he has a couple sources, so if you can repeat that with the other guys, you could just make a bio for each of them. Also consider the fact that the title of this page is NPOV. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a pain in the ass, but you do have some good points and I do like the suggestions that you made for other articles you are reviewing. I include here the translation of the word, only because you insinuated that I made it up.:} http://vdict.com/bu%E1%BB%93n,2,0.html

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; given that the nomination and the two initial !votes were regarding a lack of sources (and hence a lack of notability), the five sources which were found counters this. I've added the five references to the article, however they need to be wikified per MOS. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Van Hung

Le Van Hung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be a personalised account. see also Cruel april Tim! 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 05:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Cyrillic alphabet

German Cyrillic alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been pretty much verified that there is no source for this article and that it is a hoax. -- Evertype·✆ 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German deleted their version of this articel. Someone may want to notify Korean and Macedonian, as they have translations of this. 68.39.174.238 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard jeffs

Richard jeffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questionable notability, no evidence provided to meet WP:BIO. Your notability isn't determined by who you do business with. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Intelligence

Leadership Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Meaningless buzzword. Compare the section under "Problems in a business process may arise in three places:" in WP:BOLLOCKS Leibniz 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Debi Pearl

Michael and Debi Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiu Popa

Claudiu Popa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity page for non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 13:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Possamai

Adam Possamai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN per WP:PROF ("an emerging new scholar" says as much). Leibniz 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Richman

Adam Richman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet notability guidelines for music or people.

  • The article starts out by saying that he is a kid who makes records in his parent's basement.
  • He hasn't been on national tour.
  • He hasn't been picked up by any label, his albums are do-it-yourself.
  • No evidence of meeting any of the notability guidelines for people or musicians.

Mdhandley 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_12&oldid=87333423"