Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 31 August 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Blackford

[edit]

Seems fairly non-n. See [1] Mad Jack 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I generally use Amazon as an "acid test" for the notability of an author, and none of his works are listed. This means he most likely publishes via a vanity press. --Thorne N. Melcher 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:NOT not paper. The second work is the first truly published work, and is supposed to be available on amazon by the end of the month. Define 'non-n' Though listed under authors, there are several more things about this person that qualify them for listability. --Ira-welkin 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems an interesting enough guy, but I don't see notability based on what's here. He started a few nn websites. He recorded an album, which is a very different thing from released an album, and is recording another. No record company listed. A book that is supposed to be available in the future, but no way to verify that, or if it will sell when published. Sorry, not there yet. Fan-1967 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even the article itself suggests that the subject is "...becoming emergently known..." - logically, one may conclude that the subject itself is not notable at this time. It would be a simple matter to resurrect this article when the artist is no longer in the process of "becoming emergently known" and is in fact, well established. --HappyCamper 05:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! Its a good article, I don't see why it should be deleted. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.138.227 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • KeepWhats the big deal? Is this page really hurting anybody? No it isnt so stop crying about getting it deleted and mind your own damn business. - Mikewjordan 17:19, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • Keep I'm an author myself, keep it here!!!!! SCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.150.194 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • Keep This article has every right to be here along with the others. It is enlightening, educational, and a good read in general. Seantelle 17:34, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • -Keep- I totally agree with saving this article. I found it rich with entertainment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantelle (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 August 2006 Note: Second edit, and second vote in a row, from this user
  • KeepI don't see what the big problem is with keeping the article up. It's informative,he's a great guy, and it's definitely not hurting anyone. We want new people in the world, we want to learn more.. the mysteries in this world is great, the ones that actually delve deep within society and the unknown are the only ones even attempting to help those that wish to know more.. are very few. Oh, wait, no.. there's quite a few, but they gain no attention from anything, due to things like this. People bust them down and make them disappear just like some notable artists and novelists in this world. How else is a person to get a contract or a publishing contact without being known? What kind of publisher would want to take on a person not known by -anyone- with something that some publishers have no idea about? Take that into concideration, you may very well be putting a wet blanket upon a firey new novelist or even a new, and actually, interesting, real life show.Becki Daniels, CEO Gamers Guild— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.23.25 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • Keep So far I am in agreement with everything said by others who voted 'keep.' Troy is truly a great guy, lovable, entertaining, passionate, dedicated, talented, and still on his way up. Not only does he have a huge following, but he is still on the rise, which is more than impressive, and he has done more than most of us could ever hope to accomplish. As his book shall be out soon, I also see no harm in having his page here meanwhile. I would rather this site be ahead of the times than months behind them. -M. Bang.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.121.178 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • Keep Who is it hurting? We should be supportive of up and coming talent, not trying to crush it. We're talking about a field that is already extremely hard to break into, without our comdemning or judging. It's very simple really, do unto others as you would have done to you. I learned that before I was five, and I'm a better person for following such a policy.--Kaboob22 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from this user[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why this article needs to be deleted. Are those proposing deletion jealous that Troy gets a Wikipedia entry? What the heck? The article is informative and well written, and if being "non-n" (whatever that means) is reason enough to delete an article, I say that this article is "un-non-n" and should be kept. We need a venue to inform ourselves on new talents, and Troy certainly qualifies as such. Isn't Wikipedia about getting away from the bulls**t that the general media provides, and providing information that is given and revised by the internet community. Instead of knocking emerging artist down because they don't fit the popular culture definition of being reference-worthy, the Wikipedia community should embrace the opportunity to inform and educate on matters or artists that are otherwise ignored by other mediums. And those who don't like this idea should go eonline.com to feast on the commericial media chuck wagon, I'm sure you're eager to find out when Ashley Simpson's book of poetry is out. -Anjie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.233.158 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • Keep- Freedom of the press~ Meggers 20:51, 2 August 2006 Note: First edit from this user
  • Delete Sorry Troy. I find you to be a very interesting person, and I even call you my friend on myspace. You're a lot more constructive than most of us, and I believe in your work. But I also believe in Wikipedia's work. This article about you may not hurt anyone, but there is a right place and time for everything. This is not the place or time....yet. When your name is out there, and people come to Wikipedia looking for your name, instead of seeing the article by typing your name into Google, or clicking on a link directly to it, then you will be ready for the Wikipedia ;) --Terrormachine 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is thorough, and the subject seems to be very popular in certain circles, but in the end there is no assertion of notability for inclusion here. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject seems to have made little impact on the world - fails WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Isn't there a wikipedia policy against vanity pages? This seems to be nothing more than one, perhaps written by the author himself. The multiple new users logging in to post messages of support (sometimes twice) are kind of a possible sign of such ...--ThatBajoranGuy 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Go-Go

[edit]

The page has very little information and hasn't been cleaned up, has a list of bands with no idea of their notability, and the list isn't even clearly defined - what do those categories even mean? It seems that people are adding their own bands as advertising, and that's all this page is for. Awiseman 19:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite It's in pretty bad shape right now, but I don't see any reason to outright delete the page. With some work, it can be a worthwhile entry. fuzzy510 07:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been trying to get people to come by, both at the main go-go page and at the Washington, DC page, but to no avail. I don't think there will ever be enough to make the page useful, which is part of the reason why I AFD'd it. I don't think it will ever be more than a stub. --Awiseman 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Requests to clean up the article have gone unanswered, and it does not even contain a single reference. At best, it is a non-notable neologism, which still needs to be deleted. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone just added it to the musical genres project, which I didn't know existed. That might help someone come by and fix it? --Awiseman 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree w/ Aguerriero & Awiseman. Good call.--ThatBajoranGuy 06:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("� 2004-2006, Acegi Technology Pty Limited") non-GFDL web page. This is Copyright Judo. Uncle G 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acegi

[edit]

Page does not assert notability, failing WP:CORP. It also reads like spam. --Natalie 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article reads like an infomercial or very long brochure... Natalie, just for future reference, add new discussions to the bottom of the list. :) Srose (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should NOT be deleted, though it definately needs someone to edit it. Acegi is a valid and widely used method of enforcing security in web applications. Natalie a history major is clearly not an expert in the field, and should therefore educate herself, before automatically deleting anything simply because she doesn't approve of the format.
  • Delete Non notable company per WP:CORP. And yes this is just a copy from the companies own web site yikes.Obina 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dear Hunter

[edit]

Vanity, does not assert Notability --Mithunc 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHEAL-Bibliography

[edit]

not an encyclopedia article - belongs on wikisource Stbalbach 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being nominated for deleting also include: CHEAL-Bibliography/Volume I, CHEAL-Bibliography/Volume I/Chapter 1

  • They are sub-articles so they go without saying (one can't exist without another) but I added them above to clarify. I didn't realize this is from a Copyright work, in which case the whole thing can be quickly copyvio'd .. can we confirm it is a copyvio? -- Stbalbach 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzfest forums

[edit]

This is a non-notable web-based messageboard that fails to meet WP:WEB. I had originally listed it for Speedy Deletion under WP:CSD-A7 as a vanity page since it is being used to "glorify" its members (the list of posters). The explanation for {{hangon}} can be seen at Talk:Ozzfest forums. Also, contains original research and commentary on an "invasion" on the board by a rival board. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a Wiki site about our favorite place on the net? You got articles about every other thing in the world on here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Driftwood666 (talk • contribs) .

There's nothing wrong with it providing you meet the standards. Take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and WP:NOT and see if you can rewrite your article to meet them. Yomangani 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the article if we take the members off? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Driftwood666 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your comments, however helpful they may be, by adding ~~~ at the end. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "dick" thing was uncalled for, but come on...give us some slack...we just want an article...can you just tell us what to do to keep it? Driftwood666
You claim on the talk page that the subject of this article is "real" and "important". OK, my neighbour's dog is "real". My shoe size is "important" (to me, if I'm buying shoes). If you can make a case as to why next door's dog and my shoe size merit Wikipedia articles purely on my having asserted that they are "real" and "important" you may then be able to make a case as to why this article merits a place on Wikipedia. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your neighbor loves his dog, don't he/she? And I'm sure your shoes are very nice. I'm sorry, but I really have nothing besides the fact that the Ozzfest board just wants to be on here...Driftwood666
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Memorial Church & Centre for Peace

[edit]

Non-notable building or local church. The article appears to be advertising, self-promotion, or vanity: almost two-thirds of the edits are by User:Canadianmemorial; all but two other edits (including my placing a {{prod}} template, which was subsequently removed) are by editors who have contributed to no other articles. Much of the article is unverified or POV. Agent 86 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Returns only 48 hits on Google.AmiDaniel (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it was a more legitimate memorial in a building that happened to be a church, it'd be different. But I doubt this is the place where Canadians go remember those lost in war. SliceNYC 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Popcorn2008 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Nathan (talk) / 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree that the content is self-promotion, but even a restrictive Google search yields 12,000 hits which is high for a church. Deet 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What search would that be? Searching for "Canadian Memorial Church" as a string, excluding Wikipedia gives only 395 hits. Not doing it as a string would pick up almost any online obituary for any Canadian with a memorial service at a church. GRBerry 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you're right. I think I must have missed a plus sign in one of the two terms the first time I tried it. Deet 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While of course it would be preferable to have these facts referenced to an outside source, the foundation of this church as a WWI memorial may give it significance that other local congregations lack. Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete To show it is notable, there should be reference to news stories about it, to books written about it, to noteworthy events that took place there, like some inportant meeting or innovation or doctrinal development, or someone famous who was a member. The only reference or link is to the church's own webstie.Edison 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the church itself gets few Ghits, some of them do establish notability, such as [2], [3], [4]. The Center for Peace appears to be more currently notable than the Church (about 42 times as many Ghits), but the Church appears to be more historically notable. GRBerry 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* I'm the first creator of this page and new to Wikipedia, so there is my bias. In Vancouver there are 2 places where people go to remember the War dead, our local park and Canadian Memorial Church. There will be a Merchant Marine service on Sept 3, 2006 and the three Nov 11th services attract about 1,000 people annually (I didn't add those facts to the article, as that would be self promotion). The Memorial Church was opened with senior political figures from Federal, Provincial and City governments (I thought it was of low interest now 75 years later, so didn't post those facts). In June 2006 22 different multi-faith events at the World Peace forum were held at the Centre for Peace. The Vancouver Historic Society included Canadian Memorial Church in their 2004 tour of historic churches. As far as verification, the federal goverment's website confirms most of the key facts [5]. Give us a chance to make this an appropriate Wikipedia entry please! Canadianmemorial 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not dispute that Remembrance Day services occur at the Centre and do not intend to argue verifiability; however, there are more than two places in Vancouver where memorial services are held (not counting the numerous memorials held in various locations in all the municipalities of Greater Vancouver. In addition to the Cenotaph at Victory Square and the Centre, memorial services are held at the Japanese Memorial at Stanley Park, Grandview Park Cenotaph, the Chinese cenotaph (Keefer Square), Memorial Park South (41st and Prince Albert) and (if you count UBC as part of Vancouver), the memorial at War Memorial Gym. If there is a basis for which this facility is encyclopedic, then fine, but it shouldn't be considered encyclopedic on the incorrect statement that it's only one of two places where war memorials are held. Agent 86 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant no disrespect to the other places of memorial, and thank you for bringing them to mind. I was thinking of the places with large attendance. The Japanese Memorial in Stanley Park for example would be an excellent subject for an article, even if it attracts only a small gathering, because of its uniqueness and social commentary. I appreciate your comment that you do not argue verifiability, as that seems to be progress from your comment at the top of the page ("Much of the article is unverified...").Canadianmemorial 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good newspaper verification is at [6] Canadianmemorial 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the facts in the article are verified, it is still non-notable. The article has to establish why it belongs in this encyclopedia, and I don't think it does that currently. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • this question of notable is very interesting. You have authored a number of articles on somewhat obscure musicians, but those are notable. Another of the commentators above has authored articles on reality TV shows concerning housecleaning, and that is notable. I stopped by the Centre for Peace today, and they were hosting a meeting of about 15 teenagers brought from Palestine along with about 15 teenagers brought from Israel, along with teens from the Vancouver area, to talk about "peace-ing it together" (see [7]), and I think what that place is doing is notable. Perhaps to Americans, you don't realize the effect 60,000 war dead had on a very small nation of Canada in WWI, but it was a critical point in our journey as a nation, and school kids want to look such things up, and they want to know where this story is told in their community. In Canada we struggle with our mission as peacekeepers, their deaths, and the conflict between armed interventions and traditional peacekeeping - and here is a place dealing with those issues. It is notable.Canadianmemorial 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Just as you ought not take it personally if an article you've worked on is nominated, there is no need to put down the work of other contributors in order to defend your own. If you have problems with those other articles, nominate them for deletion. As for this article, Wikipedia is not a directory nor a local interest guide. It matters not if someone is American or Canadian or Greek or Chilean - they are entitled to question the notability of the subject matter of an article. If it matters, I'm Canadian, I'm from Vancouver, and I've seen the Centre countless times. I can tell you, this place does not meet whatever standards of notability might apply. I'm not saying the place is unimportant, but it's no more significant than any other parish church in Vancouver. Agent 86 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, I respect that we can have different opinions; I wanted to express that the standard set for notability here seemed to be higher than applied to your own works, and that does not disparage your works. There are indeed aspects of the Church and Centre for Peace that is no different than most other churches in Vancouver (those aspects are properly not included in the article - and I would welcome editing help if there are elements remaining that offend this). The fact that it was build by National (and American) subscription as a War Memorial is notable; the fact that it has an ongoing role as a place of remembrance for those who died in war that extends well beyond its church membership is notable; and the fact that it has a Centre that actively supports peace projects far beyond the bounds of the church membership is notable.Canadianmemorial 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like vanity, and POV problems. Also, as a note to Canadianmemorial, you do not need to vote twice as you did above; it has no effect on the overall result. --ThatBajoranGuy 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment roster --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Television Roster

[edit]

All the information is copied in its entirety from World Wrestling Entertainment roster with other information removed and no new information gleamed or required --- Lid 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article will have the names put in alphabetical order and only have Superstars on the active list once they debute on television. (Promo videos do not count), but that can be covered by a category if required. Yomangani 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; WP:SNOW + consensus — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YTCracker

[edit]

This is a renomination. The original nomination was:

Seems to be a vanity page of a mostly non-notable person. Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current nomination is by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs), and was made somewhat incorrectly. Note that some of the comments here were copied from the original deletion discussion page. (I have no personal position in the discussion - I'm just trying to clarify the situation here.) Zetawoof(ζ) 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the page should be deleted as per the fact that many of the above votes are unsigned by verifiable users, and that the subject of the article edits the article himself, which is in poor form, as per the longterm discussion at Jimbo Wales Chris 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before the unsigned votes, there were three "legitimate" keep votes based on true assertions about the artist's notability and compatability with WP:MUSIC versus zero delete votes. It is too soon to renominate an article based solely on the fact that it is in poor form -- that is a cause to edit, not delete. SliceNYC 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks shy of a year is hardly too soon, and plenty enough time to clean this article up of POV and self-glorification. Chris 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A misunderstanding -- I was reading the AfD log quickly and just assumed it was recent, not from 2005. However, the fact that no delete votes were made and the artist is well-known and has many Google results is still germane, and my vote to keep stands. SliceNYC 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good The Bad & The Hermaphroditic

[edit]

Another student film, this one by high school students. Screened at the high school, and, per the article, nobody wanted to buy a copy. As non-notable as they come. Fan-1967 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kheru Nefer

[edit]

Nonnotable children's book; not on Amazon, 21 unique Ghits, created by author with same name as book's publisher. NawlinWiki 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gregory Barbarigo school

[edit]

This is a non-notable primary/middle school. Aside from the school controversy this article also fails WP:V and WP:OR. The page was tagged with proposed delete, but the tag was removed without substantial changes to the page. A quick Google search does not turn up what I would consider to be promising online sources to cure the information problem. Erechtheus 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article as it stands does not seem to indicate why the school is more notable than other middle schools; it's just an ordinary school that does not need its own article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real, established and verifiable school, and important to Catholic education in Garnerville. We shouldn't betray wikipedia users who wish to find out about it. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just how is this verifiable? There are no sources. If you know of them, perhaps now would be the time to add them. Erechtheus 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a quick web search, there appear to be several reasonable candidates for sources. The article is certainly verifiable. It wouldn't be a big deal for someone to add the sources to the article; maybe I'll do that tomorrow. Having said that, AfD is not cleanup. Giving an article a five-day deadline to become top-quality isn't always fair to the people who are interested in the article; some things take time. Oh, and keep (although a merge is okay with me too if anyone wants to propose one). JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the event that sources are found and added, we're back to the same old school debate. I have to disagree about cleanup versus AfD. When there are no sources cited in the article at all and the article has been around for over 2 months, peril of deletion only seems appropriate. Erechtheus 02:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, but until two days ago there were no inbound or outbound links and no categories. Essentially, it was almost impossible to find even if someone did want to expand it, source it, etc. JYolkowski // talk 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why would you use Wikipedia to find out about schools? Any useful information other than location and the colour of the school mascot would likely be POV. Parents who move to the neighbourhood would find more useful school guides than wikipedia. Catchpole 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's anything inherently POV about explaining the history and makeup of the school and any notable events connected with it. Wikipedia is more accessible than a school guide which is only available in the neighbourhood. Frankly I have almost no interest in US schools, but I would like to be able to read about schools in various other countries without having to actually visit the location (or speak the language). Kappa 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable school. JoshuaZ 04:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. — Nathan (talk) / 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is directory entry and wikipedia is not a directory -- Koffieyahoo 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verified mboverload@ 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is verifiable and expandable, topic is useful and notable. -- Visviva 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a school directory, there is no other reason that this would be notible.--Musaabdulrashid 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable school. ViridaeTalk 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since citing summaries of reasons for holding a position to keep a school has recently come under attack, here are some of the reasons that I think this particular school-related article should be kept:

huge textdump removed - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my thoughtful opinion that these reasons taken together are applicable to this discussion even they may treat of other school articles or school articles in general, it is my opinion that this particular article ought to retained for these (and other reasons.--Nicodemus75 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a point by disrupting AFD with a huge textdump again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a "textdump", removing other editor's comments is vandalism. I am perfectly entitled to state as many reasons as I like why this article should be kept.--Nicodemus75 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a compromise, I've moved the removed text to this AfD's talk page. -- H·G (words/works) 07:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They'll be a flood of "keep" citing non-guidelines and non-policies, but this is nothing but a stub. It can be mentioned in Garnerville,_New_York somewhere. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not an indescriminate collection of information. If an actual article can't be written, it needs to head for its city/town article and the tidbit of information can go there. It fails the proposed policy on WP:SCHOOL and dpbsmith's nice little BEEFSTEW criteria. Kevin_b_er 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Garnerville, New York unless significantly expanded. Yamaguchi先生 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school (less than 200 students). Cedars 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A private (admittedly not-for-profit) business that fails WP:CORP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a school directory, no indication of being notable. Catchpole 09:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most schools are notable. Keep for expansion. 66.122.247.91 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC) forgot to sign in, that was my vote bbx 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think a merge works, here, as this is a private school and therefore not part of the municipal structure. Private schools have more potential than public schools to have a real identity, but this article appears to be by inmates of the school, and they have little to say. Geogre 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiability criteria is taken care of with the reference links. We can prove the school exists. Now the fact that its a stub... well that isnt a good reason for deletion. If we deleted all stubs half the wiki would be gone. Leave and give it time for organic growth.  ALKIVAR™ 12:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this article verifiably meet the applicable notability standard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three comments:
        1. WP:CORP isn't an applicable notability standard, even for private schools. Schools are not important because of the amount of money they make, but because hundreds of people spend huge amounts of time at them at a pivotal time of their lives.
        2. Almost all schools meet WP:CORP anyway. Even ignoring the references already in the article, I'm sure that this place, like almost every other school, has had significant local media coverage.
        3. Lack of notability isn't a reason for deletion except in narrowly defined circumstances. It can be a reason for merging though, which I'd personally be okay with.
      • JYolkowski // talk 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Why isn't WP:CORP applicable? It is a business, and while #2 and #3 of WP:CORP aren't likely to be relevant, #1 (the existence of media coverage) is relevant. Traditionally, it's on the author of an article to assert that their article on a private business serves some encyclopedic purpose and that it can be expanded into an encyclopedic article, and isn't vanity or advertisement or just an unexpandable demographic stub.
        That said, I wouldn't particularly object to a merge; I'm just not sure where. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --and allow the school to expand as suggested above. It is a new entry and can improve. Just because it is a small school should not be a reason to keep it out. Small schools can be notable. When you say the "inmates" wrote it, you must mean the students. That is looking down on the students who are trying to work on their page because they don't have all the technical people public schools have. When the School Project wants a school to be kept, then they fix up a stub to keep it from being deleted. Is it only public schools that they will work on so they can be notable? LemonIce 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable primary school. Kafziel 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not sufficiently notable/important to have been the subject of multiple, verifiable reliable source studies- the source that verifies its existence is a collection/census of school information listed in serial. When the school is subject to a specific study or becomes notable for anything, this vote will change to a keep. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a high school, not notable. A small school can be notable, but it has to prove that it's notable. --PresN 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons described at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The school is verifiable through three different reliable sources. Three = multiple. (forgot to sign) Silensor 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Estate

[edit]

No assertion of notability -Nv8200p talk 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbette

[edit]

Non-notable cartoon character. As stated in the article, this character only appeared in a single episode of Tiny Toon Adventures. Not article-worthy. WarpstarRider 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Freedom

[edit]

Reads like an advertisment, NN pay as you go company, contains very little information Knowing Is Half The Battle 02:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LFNetwork

[edit]

This page was proposed to be deleted but because some people believe it should stay I put it up to an AfD Popcorn2008 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]

Keep Although I put it up for deletion I only did so because before it was proposed for deletion, but I decided to put it toward a vote since I believe it should still be kept. Popcorn2008 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petroglyph Fan Forums

[edit]

The page was Proposed for Deletion, but because I believe it shouldnt be deleted, I decided to let the voters decide. Popcorn2008 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]

  • Keep after some editing Even though I again put this up for deletion, I only did so, so a vote could decide. Personally I think it should be kept after some editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popcorn2008 (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 1, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sango123 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Boyd (musician)

[edit]

This article has been a musician stub since August 2005, has very little detail, and the person doesn't seem to be very notable aside from winning record of the year at the Native American Music Awards in 2005. Bobblehead 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten cannon

[edit]

Fails Wikipedia: Notability (software) Was listed as PROD, but article author removed tag to dispute. Flash Game. -- Targetter 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes articles like Slime Volleyball or other games worthy of staying on wikipedia? I really don't want to see this article being taken off. What makes wikipedia great is that you can find articles on almost anything, including Kitten Cannon, but I'm pretty sure it will be deleted.Cirrsplat 12:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion Marketing Association, Inc.

[edit]

Original version was blatant advertising from their web site, a copyvio (oh, the irony of a promotional firm promoting themselves on Wikipedia). Current version still doesn't seem to follow WP:CORP. I made the mistake of prodding at the same time as adding a speedy tag for the original copyvio. Morgan Wick 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as requested by author, User:John essex —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-01 09:50Z

JohnsAuction

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. I prodded it earlier today but author removed the prod. Dipics 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Im looking at the entry for EBid - how does that entry meet the notable criteria?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander King (dj)

[edit]

Not notable, fails WP-bio abakharev 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speey Delete as looks suitable for db-bio LinaMishima 06:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, vanity and no notability. Ruaraidh-dobson 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WOW. Tough crowd here. Go ahead and delete it. THANK GOD there are scholars like you guys to put horrible, self-promoting heathens like myself in their place. Honestly, I was just trying to expand on WRAS and had no idea it would cause this type of caustic response.
  • Userfy - It's not a caustic response, you're just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, and such. Check out the rest of this page while your here, see what else is up for deletion- and these are the ones that someone thought might need some debate, rather than just deleting them off-hand. --PresN 16:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not in favor of userfying vanity articles, as we're not a web host. As for the caustic responses, I was the live music director at WREK, once upon a time. Note the "once upon a time." College radio stations go through masses of DJ's, directors, prize winners, etc. Further, WRAS is neither the most powerful nor most popular college radio station in the nation. KCRA and the Fordham stations whomp it pretty convincingly. Yes, it is good that there are scholars here who have some standards, and it is even better when idle scribblings are exiled to the outer darkness. Geogre 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your WREK background explains your arrogance. You are wrong about WRAS not being the most powerful college station in the country however. The most "popular" entity is impossible to ascertain because such a measure is completely subjective. I'd rather just delete the article because it has become unbearably irritating to deal with. I am a new user to Wikipedia and yes, I did make a mistake by violating A7 (excuse me). What you have done is made me not want to come back ever again (maybe thats what you want?). Try being constructive in the future instead of trying to belittle others. Alexhking 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing anything that could be construed as biting, I only see that you don't appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. We welcome newcomers and hope this incident doesn't keep you from contributing on notable topics, including WRAS. I do believe this is a db-author now though. Morgan Wick 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Man, Arbitron determines popularity, and Arbitron measures college radio stations. Among public stations, the highest rated is WNYC (no surprise). Among college stations, KCRA is near the top. As for "important" and influential, that can be assessed by CMJ and other trade magazines. WRAS is a college pop station. It has a good listenership, and it focuses on being accessible and college radio. <shrug> WREK was/is (for those interested in this apparent regionalism) user-hostile, a college radio station that revelled in the fact that it existed merely to be a working lab for electrical engineers. It is elitist and indifferent to the listeners, somewhat, but no one would claim that it was powerful or popular. If the author wishes to add unsourced and hyperbolic claims to the WRAS article, he would do well to read up on our procedures a bit. Geogre 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Kimchi.sg 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fucked Company

[edit]
Fucked Company was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucked Company.

Although this may have passed before, it clearly DOESNT pass the WP:WEB. I say reconsider and delete this article. Popcorn2008 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]

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

The result was merge. Jaranda wat's sup 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Inappropriate Comments by Bert Blyleven

[edit]

I think it's obvious this is listcruft at best, unencyclopedic, and possibly grounds for speedy delete. I find it funny that the author includes sources and references in an attempt to legitimize this page. Anthony Hit me up... 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think you're taking this a bit too seriously, Anthony. If you've ever watched a Twins broadcast, which I suspect you haven't, you'd see that Blyleven makes these comments surprisingly often. According to Wikipedia, "listcruft" is a list that is "indiscriminate, or of interest only to a very restricted number of people." This is neither, despite your presumptuous statement that it is "obvious" that it is. First, it is not indiscriminate, as it deals with a very specific subject. Second, baseball isn't exactly something with only a cult following. Millions of people watch Major League Baseball and teams like the Twins. Lots of people enjoy Twins broadcasts, and lots of people would find it entertaining to read a list of Blyleven's inappropriate comments assembled into one place. Just because something is amusing does not mean it is listcruft or unencyclopedic. I was only able to think of a few examples offhand, but this list will grow as long as Blyleven is in the broadcast booth. Also, I wasn't citing sources to legitimize the article -- the article is already legitimate -- but because I was trying to follow proper Wikipedia protocol. (Although I suppose it may have been in the back of my mind that somebody like you would have a hair trigger on the delete button.) And, Popcorn2008, I don't think this would work as part of Blyleven's article. This list could get quite long, and as such, it would overwhelm the Blyleven article. It is a discrete subset of info on Blyleven, and seems worthy of a separate page -- and particularly well-suited to be a list page. Sparkyfry 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely because he makes these comments so often, it is indiscriminate, which here is close to meaning "large". The tag does not apply to the subject of the list, but to its content. See WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Also, "very restricted" tends to mean that this is interesting only to people intensely interested in the specific subject. "Lots of people enjoy Twins broadcasts," but the vast majority of them are probably not interested in whatever Blyleven has said in the past. I should add to the deletion rationale that the title is POV and applies a POV to the items on the list, and the article is very close to a db-attack. (Note: If I missed the boat with this explanation, feel free to correct me. And no, Sparky, I'm not including you.) Morgan Wick 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see no citations of news coverage indicating that these comments were called into question in the Minneapolis-area media. As it is, it's inherently subjective. Someone thus might add some comment about the poor play of their favorite player. But, if there were an established paper trail of criticism, I'd say it's Wikipedia-worthy. Daniel Case 05:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. Yes, there are citations, but only in support of the Paula Abdul comment. And both of them are blogs, not our favorite sources. Daniel Case 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you this is funny, check out these comments made by Queen Elizabeth's husband, Prince Philip. Great stuff. Kafziel 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nodding approvingly at article Just to respond to a couple points. First: "Inappropriate" may seem like a subjective word, but I think the examples I've cited are pretty clearly objectively inappropriate. Is anybody really arguing that jokes about anal sex and public masturbation are appropriate for broadcasts of the supposedly family-friendly sport of baseball? "Inappropriate" seemed like the best word to title this article. Reasonable people should agree on what's inappropriate. Second: how would you guys suggest sourcing this material? Other commenters and I remember the comments clearly, but there isn't exactly a permanent record of it out there. The Paula Abdul comment made the local newspaper, but that is now gone unless you pay for Lexis-Nexis. Sports blogs seemed like the next best thing, and only publicly available place referring to the comments. Plus, Deadspin is a relatively reliable, well-read blog. I can't think of any other place to cite. Suggestions? Sparkyfry 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our policy is fairly clear on this that unless they make the news they're not WP material. (I added the Strib source to the Paula Abdul episode. That's good enough as it is.) I don't have much of a problem with the word "inappropriate" if it is used by various sources, but I'm also not sure why this should be a stand-alone article. The BB article is short enough as it is, and we routinely include a "Controversy" section in bio articles where the subject has been the target of criticism in the media. ~ trialsanderrors 17:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trunten

[edit]

This is an unheard of fan-fic character from a series that doesn't even exist. Why speedy was declined the first go-round is a wonder, though I 'spect it has to do with the deciding admin erring and believing the character legitimate (and thinking the write-up was to blame). Papacha 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can those even be public domain? They look like they incorporate elements of heavily trademarked characters, and at best could be fair use. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If someone wants to merge these, {{sofixit}}. However, a List of Real World Cast members that consists of only 4 (or 3) people out of the dozens of people that have been on the show is not something I want my name attached to. Mangojuicetalk 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley Limp

[edit]

This person has achieved no notoriety other than her appearance on the reality television show The Real World, and fails WP:BIO.

For similar reasons, I am bundling the following other articles with this nomination:

NatusRoma | Talk 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it has a few inline citations, but that doesn't mean that the subject of the article is notable. NatusRoma | Talk 03:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrawn SynergeticMaggot 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuqua

[edit]

This is a bizarre page that almost seems like a disamb. page but isn't. It covers a non-notable surname and what appears to be original research picked up by a couple of dozen other sites either due to its inclusion on Wikipedia or possibly the work of the author. I would just create a disamb. page out of this to deal with Antoine Fuqua and the school mentioned, but it appears that we have been getting on just fine without one. Erechtheus 03:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC) In light of the improvement made to list several notable persons named Fuqua and to delete the most objectionable material, I withdraw the AfD. Erechtheus 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations

[edit]

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Article was deleted in Februari 2006 and recreated in July 2006. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 31,539 and it scores 30,500 google hits. Peephole 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep moving and/or rewriting don't require AfD Eluchil404 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Ministry (Evangelical)

[edit]

Content is highly biased. This page is more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Deletionmonitor 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above user tried to list this article for July 30th, but appears to have failed when it came to adding the discussion page to the main AfD page for that day. I finished the process for him, but listed it for today to give it the full discussion period.--Musaabdulrashid 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakSpeedy Keep the majority of the article is encyclopedic, though the Youth ministry and society section makes me want to hurl. Youth ministry does interact with society in many ways, but this section is POV garbage. This section should focus on the conflicting views of youth ministry and critisisms of it being a point of brainwashing for youth into their parents evangelical backgrounds (or whatever we have sources for). It should also be noted on the top of this article that the youth ministry described here is entirely Protestant. Most Catholic youth I know hold complete distain for Protestant youth ministy.--Musaabdulrashid 02:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. Article has references, it just needs to be cleaned up and cited. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. SynergeticMaggot 03:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to do this for some time, in fact. See the talk page.HellaNorCal 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion and cleanup are two entirely different things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty: the article restates the title and offers no other information. Youth ministry is ministry for...youth. There is no application to any particular practice, any particular religion (although Christianity is assumed). There is no information offered. This is not a stub: it is a dictionary definition with headings. Geogre 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nota bene: An important note, here. My "vote," above applies to the mess that is currently residing at the title this AfD refers to. Apparently, someone redirected the article that everyone above me was voting on, and then someone else overwrote the redirect. Because of this, I cannot speedy delete the vandalized new mess. Apparently, the votes above refer to Youth Ministry (Evangelical). This is why you should not do the redirect while an article is under AfD consideration because someone else is likely to screw it up. Also note that the new title violates the naming conventions. Ugh. Geogre 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explanation: I'm sure it was done in good faith this time, but redirecting and then overwriting is a very, very bad move and can be read as an attempt to evade process. Geogre 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major rewrite would be necessary at the new title, including a change of name. The article is highly POV, and I don't mean the point of view of "evangelicals." First, that particular term has been hijacked in the last 30 years or so, so what this article is about is a single tradition of Congregationalism, which is not all of the evangelical churches. There is not nearly enough objectivity in the present article. That said, it is not a deletion policy violation at a proper title. Note that "proper title" means "Youth ministry (Evangelical)" (miniscule second term). Geogre 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Geogre that the text of the article should not have been moved while under AfD, particularly to Youth Ministry (Evangelical) which is not even capitalized correctly ("ministry" should be in lower case). I would prefer that the content be restored to what it was before, then if the AfD ends with a keep result, add information about non-evangelical youth ministry to the main article, breaking out the evangelical content to a separate article only when the article gets too big. --Metropolitan90 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a major headache, but the move should probably stay as it is, other than the naming conventions. I specifically noted to HellaNorCal that it shouldn't be moved during AfD, anyway. I would be in favor of renaming the article to match naming conventions for now. In the long run, the two articles should probably be merged and the POV content of the current one deleted. I have changed the title of this AfD to (hopefully) prevent more confusion. If there is any better way to handle this mess please fix it.--Musaabdulrashid 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs expansion, improvement and citations, but it addresses a notable topic. Rohirok 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & clean, as per several noms above. Themindset 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to youth ministry and keep. The move was ill-advised, as the article can hardly be globalized/neutralized when the term is inherently Christian. -- nae'blis 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and I'm not a Christian. UUs are not inherently christian, yet we still Minister both to and with our Youth. We refer to that whole group of things as Youth ministry. Youth ministry is not inherently christian. HellaNorCal 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello UU! I probably did generalize a bit too much there with "inherently", but the term is overwhelmingly Christian in application. UU congregations/non-Evangelicals do sometimes use the term, but I'm not yet convinced that the differences are so great that it requires two separate articles. I'd be happy to discuss this further if/when the article is kept, or on my talk page if it is not. -- nae'blis 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As would I. I've seen the term used most recently, by the UUA, in the Consultation on Ministry to and with youth. I think you hinted at this not being the place for discussion, so it's for another time. HellaNorCal 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Youth Ministry and keep - This article definitely needs a rewrite (which I hope to get to work on within a few more days), but youth ministry is an hugely important concept across Christian denominations — never mind that it's my field of work. The move (and title itself) were ill advised, as pointed out above; in any case, I disagree that there's enough uniqueness about "Evangelical" youth ministry (which is often a subjective term anyway) to distinguish it from other denominations to the point that it requires a separate article. I don't mean to claim ownership, but I've got a personal interest in this one and intend to do some serious work on it. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those interested in contributing to this article after the AfD, I'm working on a userfied copy at User:Tijuana Brass/Youth ministry. Input would be greatly appreciated, especially to keep my personal experiences and POV from seeping into the article. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad McVeigh

[edit]

Fixing this AfD nomination; I am not sure who actually first wanted this article deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've gone ahead an picked a version to revert to. It might not be perfect, but is essentially the version I saw when I opined above. Better to pick some decent version to revert to and let editing proceed than to leave it blank except for the AFD notice. GRBerry 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP given the rewrite. I participated in this, but I'm pretty sure nobody's going to complain about me closing against my arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen School

[edit]

Previously speedy deleted as a db-empty, but the deletion rationales applied to notability, which is a problem for this recreation. Morgan Wick 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, there was a period when people understood that it was useless to nominate schools. Apparently some are hoping that the keepers have become complacent or moved on, but they haven't. Gazpacho 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was that? I've been around for a year and a half now and except some odd days, schools have been getting constantly nom'd for AfD... besides, the fact that there was a period where nom's lulled isn't a reason to keep. I'd take a money wager that in another 1.5 years we will still be having this conversation.--Isotope23 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good start to article. Improve --Usgnus 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. This means not nominating articles for deletion 3 hours after they are started. Bahn Mi 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, demanding that things be "truly remarkable" before we allow people to read about them is a betrayal of our ideals. Kappa 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nope, they can read about them in the Yellow Pages. They just shouldn't be trying to read about them in an encyclopedia, and being an encyclopedia is our first principle. Geogre 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Yellow Pages does not contain encylopedia articles, and does not aspire too. Also it is not freely available to every human being on the planet. You appear to be prepared to betray our desire to learn about the world in order to us a lesson about where to look things up. Kappa 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Yellow pages is as accessible as Wikipedia: if you have web access, you have access to the Yellow Pages of any city in the US. If you don't have web access, you don't have Wikipedia. Simply listing where things are is not learning about the world, and all that this article does is say that there is a business out there for education of those who need little. There is no indication, beyond that, that there is anything to describe, to explain. What is the explanatory power of this "article?" It answers the burning question of "What is the particular thing called The Evergreen School in this particular place," but no more. Is it THE Evergreen School or is it AN Evergreen School? The authors can't even be bothered to name their article accurately, and yet you would fight to preserve a description and call it an explanation? Geogre 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Article contains multiple assertions of notability. None in and of themselves are that convincing, but having any assertion of notability makes it head and shoulders above the average school article discussed here. GRBerry 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable school, allow to develop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well-written article that should be a model for other schools. If the article is this thorough after one day on Wikipedia, imagine what could be done in a whole week, or maybe even a month or two! Alansohn 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a nationally ranked chess team and other rewards. Hard to see how it doesn't meet WP:N. JoshuaZ 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. --Rob 18:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost a model article. Has a whole section on "Accolades and achievements". --JJay 04:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - CSD A7.--Andeh 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Chan

[edit]

Delete - Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO. Fabricationary 03:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy kept. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Real Estate

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERA Othello Realty *Delete as per my nom. Withdrawn my mistake - thought this was yet another of the franchises. Dlyons493 Talk 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burhan Beidas

[edit]

This is a biography of a non-notable ad executive that also appears to have a WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO problem. The creator and primary modifier of the article is Mousabeidas. Mousabeidas has a contribution history that includes this page and talk pages where the user has asked how to rename this article and how to make sure it shows up in Google. The lack of wikification is also troubling, but that's an issue beyond this AfD if the article is somehow kept. Erechtheus 03:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Old revision of User talk: Mousabeidas Zetawoof(ζ) 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mousabeidas

  • Keep: I had trouble working around the complicated nature of the wickepidia system. In the Middle East, Mr. Beidas is notable though it may not show it online. If I could get a little help from one of the people complaining, then the article would be more wickepidia friendly.
    • Reply what help do you need in particular? You can also use my Talk page to converse with me on this matter. It woul be great if we could improve the article to a level worthy of keeping, since wikipedia needs more Middle Eastern entries. Remember, you can sign your comments with ~~~~ ! LinaMishima 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I can't understand people who endorse Visviva's desire to merge which is specifically unclear about the target. There is barely any info here; the incident is mentioned briefly already in Hostilities between North and South Korea since 1953, and merging to Korean Demilitarized Zone is a bad idea, considering the contents of that article. Mangojuicetalk 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 North Korean-South Korean border skirmish

[edit]

This is a news story, not an encyclopedic article. This, at best, belongs at Wikinews. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Fang Aili per G4. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquygen

[edit]

This is a commercial company offering a commercially available product that they claim is based on a new mixture of hydrogen/oxygen. Whether or not the central claims of the company are true or false, having an article serves to inform interested parties that there is a debate regarding it's validity. On that basis alone the article should remain. Those who claim it is based on pseudo-science have the same opportunity to refute the claims as those who believe in the validity of the claims. Deleting this article serves no purpose whatsoever. Having an article allows disagreement to exist. Funny how a book burning always involves bringing someone else's books to the bonfire.

Additional thought: those who feel the claims are invalid have the opportunity to have the products tested independently in a lab of their choice. Contact the manufacturer for details. If you feel the product does not do what it claims, then your beef at least in the USA is with the Federal Trade Commission. www.ftc.gov


Deleted Befere, psueoscience with no evidence. LinaMishima 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Old debate is still around as I'm new at this and I can't simply comment into source to remove it until someone helps :/ Please help LinaMishima 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moved this nom to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)" to remove old debate, original debate is available here. BryanG(talk) 04:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am just reporting information here people! Thats all!! So why dont you just delete the article if you are so offended by the scientific information.. Fact is, the US Army and CREDIBLE Sources are looking into the technology. You can view a video produced by FOX news and CNN and other news sources on the Website. Its not pseudoscience. It is a scientific fact that you can verify by contacting Hydrogen Technology Application Inc. They are based in Clearwater Florida. They will provide you with samples which you can take to any Lab in the country to verify. All information is cited and sourced.Boyohio02 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advice: "offended by the scientific information" please check that any scientific information is valid rather than psuedoscience with no basis in fact before making such statements. Otherwise they fail to help your case. LinaMishima 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please add yopur thoughts at the bottom of the page. This makes following the dicussion much easier. LinaMishima 05:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Old article appears to be basically the same content. Not certain, however, and a debate has alreay begun, so not changing formally to speedy delete. More reasons in the old debate log. Many thanks to BryanG for saving my hide! LinaMishima 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR etc. --Peta 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advertising, OR, and so forth. Byrgenwulf 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:VANITY, WP:CORP. See also Brown's gas. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this scientific advance appears to have ramifications in the field of bollocks purification. Ruaraidh-dobson 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most likely spurious.--RMHED 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are many well sourced articles in Wikipedia on the use of alternative fuels and hydrogen fuel that explain all this very clearly. There are a lot of companyies trying to cash in on people's desire to believe there is an alternative to fossil fuel. Jacks 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People still don't seem to be grasping the content of this article. Regardless of your individual view on alternative energy. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept of hydrogen technology, alternative fuels or its implications, you are neglecting the fact that the gas is a real substance, which has already been created by Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. and tested by governmental agencies. This is a new gas containing both H2 and O2, as cited by a scientific journal. For individuals to be "voting" on whether or not this article is a fake, is to deny the completely factual information presented in the article. You can verify this information via the US Patent Office. Patent application number is: 20060075683. You can also consult the various media sources outlined in the section of Sources used for the article. For verification of the information I suggest you call the media who reported on the story including CNN, FOX news and NBC. But for people to be Blindly suggesting that the article be deleted because the haven't heard of the technology or they dont agree with the technology is obsurd and wrong. That would be like saying we should delete an article on abortion because people are offended by it. Do some research on the topic prior to suggesting an article be deleted.

Boyohio02 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the links are either at youtube (that paragon of scientific truth) or http://hytechapps.com , which looks like an advertisment. Oh, and there's a patent application, too. Not a patent, which might be notable. An application. No "scientific journal". I'm sorry, but this makes the needle on my bullshit meter just fly into the red zone. Ruaraidh-dobson 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reputable scientific sources for this information, and no notability simply as a pseudoscientific claim either. Rohirok 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, youtube is not a scientific journal. --PresN 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually Ruaraidh-dobson, It is listed in scientific journal. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9 , August 2006, Pages 1113-1128. The link is right in the article had you bothered to look for it. [19] I have all the links to the media sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, NBC Affiliate WAVE TV of Louisville Ky) listed if you took the time to actually look through the entire article you would have found that. If you dont have time to look through the article to find the sources, here are the direct links for you to view. [20] [21] [22] [23]. So if you want to call it "bullshit" thats fine with me, you are entitled to your opinions, but you cannot deny that it is in scientific journals, and also reported on by the Major News Networks.

Boyohio02 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not the province of the self-appointed Wikipedia deletion militia to decide the truth or falseness of new developments in science and technology, only to decide if the article has a noteworthy subject and verifiable documentation. Leaading scientists of the day look really stupid now for scoffing at demonstrations of Hertzian wave production by Thomas Edison and David Hughes in the 1870's, and leading newspapers scoffed at Robert Goddard's ideas of rockets in space, and the electrical transformer was derided as a perpetual motion machine by the patent office. When the promotors of the device publish all details, science, being self correcting, will or will not replicate their findings. Subjectively, it seems unlikely to me that this is a newn energy source. A new energy source using water as its raw ingredient is certainly newsworthy, but a feature on tv is not a very well refereed verifiable source. Nor is "being looked at by the government." Local stations will run any absurdity to perk up ratings. No Wall Street Journal or New York Times article? Nothing in a book from a reputable publisher, or a refereed scientific journal like Nature? A gas that FreeRepublic said appears to be Brown's gas or water vapor? Come back when you have references to other than your own press releases, your own web sites, and "patent pending" claims. Of course there are several well known scientific errors, frauds, and hoaxes in Wikipedia, labelled as such. See polywater, n ray, cold fusionPhiladelphia Experiment,Perpetual motion (including several patented "free energy motors'"). So this product being water vapor or Brown's gas does not prevent it having a Wikipedia article, but not one at this early stage which can be cited for promotion purposes.Edison 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I am not promoting anything. I just heard about this story on the news, and I looked it up on wikipedia to find out more information. When no wiki article was found, I decided to do some research and create an article on the topic. I had no idea it would create such a unwarranted controversy. I am not affiliated in any way with Hydrogen Technology Applications, so I reject the notion that I am trying to promote them. I simply want to be objective and report the truth as it is currently known. I dont understand why people believe that this article should be deleted when the information in the article is factually based. I have outlined the sources of the information. I am reporting on what I have found in the news articles and on the scientific journal which I posted above. Regardless of the positions of others on the scientific data, I have done all the things that are required for the article. I have fully researched the topic, I have posted the scientific data, I have cited all my sources of that data, and I have included links to credible media sources. I dont know what else I can do to prove that this is not something I just up and decided to make up to fool people. It seems to me that the people who are recommeding deletion have some sort of unknown agenda to keep this information from being viewed on wikipedia. If there are other reasons to delete this article I would love to hear them, otherwise, I think that Edison is right, people are just acting as "self-appointed Wikipedia deletion militia to decide the truth or falseness of new developments in science and technology". boyohio02 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (A7) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-01 09:46Z

Stewy smoot

[edit]

vanity entry, article name is same as submitter's name; no information provided, no sources, not encyclopedic Akradecki 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied as copyvio. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypergeometrical Universe - Theory of Everything

[edit]

Original research abakharev 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch Full Gospel Church

[edit]

"Second largest Korean church in Christchurch". Not quite enough notability there, I think Daniel Case 05:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm refusing to merge 10 articles I'm not familiar with into a condensed version as the result of an AfD. Normally, I'd just let another admin do the job, but let's be realistic, this is more work than ANY admin should be asked to do. The info is on the web, anyone who wants to work on condensing it and writing original text may do so. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 January

[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Also reads like a straight copy and paste from somewhere. Possible copyvio? Resolute 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 February
Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 March
Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 April
Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 March
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 January
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 February
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 April
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 March

Resolute 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if I'm a allowed a vote as the relister. This is just way, way too detailed information for an encyclopedia. There's a point where you have to say, if a really serious researcher needs minutae about a particular subject they'll have to find it off this Wiki, and we should provide links to that material. We can't swallow the entire world wide web. (As to copyvio, you'd think this would have come from NASA and thus be public domain, but a quick string search does indeed bring back only the private site [[26], so I don't know what's up with that.) Herostratus 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into a single generalised timeline. Useful and interesting information. However the copyvio poses a major problem. LinaMishima 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove most of it and merge the most important aspects to the main article. Delete the rest and link the timelines on NASA's site at the bottom of the main article. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend merge into a single timeline. Monthly breakdowns aren't needed. Copyvio issues need to be taken care of. I do not recommend a delete, however, unless we can preserve the basic facts somewhere for the creation of a master timeline. Kevin_b_er 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the work in doing this is going to be enormous. Checking down the text for copyvios will take long enough. Unless someone is happy to undertake this I stll think that deletion followed by the creation of a single timeline article, if anyone wants to do this, is the cleanest solution. BlueValour 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sonic Ninja Warriors

[edit]

Appears to be about a mostly-nonexistant fan work, illustrated with a vast number of copyvio images. --Carnildo 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete related SSNW Episode Guide --TheFarix (Talk) 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know, dude, but i've been working hard on it, so try to leave it, as it's my private article. And i'll use the infos i got in the whole article to make a flash movie series with friends of mine. AND sorry if there's too many copyrighted screenshots, but that's how the series will be looking like (at least, will try to make them look like Sonic X(Though it will take us a LOT of time)). AND, I NEED THAT STUFF TO MAKE THE FLASH SERIES. So, don't delete it, OK? --Metal Sonic 08:56, 1 August 2006
    • Delete - seriously, guy, you need to go and read what Wikipedia is actually about. It's not a webhost for your "private article" and stuff you "need to make a flash series". It's an encyclopaedia, every page of which is accessible to millions of people who come here looking for information. A page such as this is, I'm sorry to say, a complete waste of Wikipedia server space and an abuse of what the facilities exist for. If you want to host all that stuff online somewhere as a reference point for yourself and your friends, there are countless places you can do it - Wikipedia most certainly isn't one of them. Seb Patrick 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and by support of that argument by the primary author of the article. -- Koffieyahoo 08:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire, or userfy. "It's my private article" See WP:OWN (and this is why I propose userfying). "I'll use the info in the article to make a flash movie series" Can't you keep it elsewhere and take Wikipedia seriously? "I NEED [the images] TO MAKE THE FLASH SERIES" Wikipedia is not a mirror or repository of images. Morgan Wick 09:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • .....do whatever you want guys. I'm proud of myself for creating such fine piece of Sonic stuff. --Metal Sonic 13:25, 1 August 2006
  • Delete but don't userfy as userpages are supposed to be (at least tangentially) related to wikipedia. Ruaraidh-dobson 11:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn vanity fanfiction not covered by WP:FICT. Also appears to have ownership issues as well so it may need to be salted. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above and the user own admission. However can he be given time or at elast userfy it for a week, I would hate to see someone lose all that information because they made an honest mistake. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrie Williams-Wheeler

[edit]

Probable vanity article from a self-published author. No references outside her own online presence are provided to verify her significance.Delete --Peta 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Websites fail WP:WEB, so she's not notable for them, and the book seems like a non-starter too. --Dhartung | Talk 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EverythingCU.com

[edit]

Article describes an "online community of credit professionals" with 4,400 members. It's a direct failure of WP:WEB, and, for those interested, the Alexa is 3,858,921. The author removed my prod after adding more links. alphaChimp laudare 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, I'm new to trying to write an article for Wikipedia, and I am operating in good faith. I don't know the proper rules to follow, but I'd like to try to make this right. I believe that EverythingCU.com is indeed notable under guideline 1 of WP:WEB in that EverythingCU.com has been featured in several non-trivial published works that are completely independent. These sources include several articles about EverythingCU.com and its brand event published in CU Times, a weekly magazine based out of Fairfield CT, as well as the Massachusetts Credit Union League's monthly newsletter, and the Pennsylvania Credit Union Association's web site. --Mmpartee 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Thanks for the nice response. Typically non-trivial published works would be things like the NY Times, Washington Post, Times of London, etc. I understand that this might be notable amongst credit professionals, but my feeling is that it does not meet Wikipedia inclusion standards (also see WP:NN). I'm sorry that this is your first experience with Wikipedia. It's pretty rough to have an article proposed for deletion. alphaChimp laudare 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I should modify that statement. It's pretty rough to have your first article nominated for deletion (I proposed it earlier, this is a nomination). alphaChimp laudare 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN (non notable), sources provided lack notability themselves and in my opinion at least are not non-trivial published works. Sorry for this being your first Wikipedia experience as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. Rohirok 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (for now) - I do think this group is known among CU professionals, but I'm not sure. I do recall hearing of them in a couple of the volunteer activities I did with a CU a few months back. However generally a CEO doesn't create an article about their own organization. In any case, sources such as the Palo Alto Weekly are used as examples that establish notability in other (WP:CORP) guidelines. Also, I'm turned off that a marketing and branding expert has their first WP article about their organization. I'd ask that the article address why having 4k+ members or whatever makes them influential in substantial ways. I've been to a CU related workshop, and not every organization that puts such workshops together and has a large mailing list is notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a wonderful and fascinating exchange, and I would like to thank all of the editors of wikipedia for being kind, thoughtful, energetic, and rigorous with this and all other WP articles. Yes, I am guilty as charged for being the creator of this particular online community/web site/business, so I must announce and make public my bias here. I also want to state that I very much respect WP, and even more now that I have learned (first hand!) about the standards for inclusion. I am reading the discourse on the notability guidelines and find it extremely fascinating. I see the arguments on both sides. Because I respect WP so much, my first contribution was a very gentle toe in the water; I added an acronym to the list of company name etymologies. I also want to thank the editors for being kind to a newbie. I have read some WP literature on being kind to newbies, and the importance of that to encourage more participation. I am heavily biased in regards to EverythingCU.com's place in the world, so please bear with me as I make an attempt to illuminate this corner of the financial world. Certainly credit unions deserve their article, and each of the 9000 credit unions in the U.S. probably do not each deserve their own article. However there is a large system and network that supports credit unions in the U.S., such as the government agency NCUA, which is the credit union equivalent of the FDIC. Also important is the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), and most states have a credit union league or association. There remain a handful of Corporate Credit Unions (i.e. a credit union's credit union) , and each of them are most likely worthy of inclusion. I would assert that each state's CU League is worthy of inclusion; every one of them is unique and offers significant benefits to their credit union constituents and therefore millions of people who benefit from credit union membership. Credit Union Executives Society (CUES) and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) are two more very significant organizations devoted to the cause of helping credit unions and the professionals that run them. The credit union movement is also a worldwide movement, and credit unions are significant in many countries such as Canada, Ireland, Australia, and in many developing countries and economies. The World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU) based in Madison WI furthers the industry throughout the world. While I would like to argue that EverythingCU.com is of equal significance to the credit union industry as these other institutions, it would be inappropriate of me to do so since my bias is clear. But I would be happy to address specific concerns in this matter when asked, so I will attempt to do that with as little bias as possible. I will end this comment with two further thoughts: I will not take personal offense if it is decided that the EverythingCU.com article should be deleted (thank you again to everyone for being kind in the deletion opinions). I also see that there is much additional information on credit unions that ought to be added (such as articles about CUNA Mutual Group, CUES, NAFCU, WOCCU, Edward Filene, Dora Maxwell, Louise McCarren Herring, more history of credit unions), and I will do what I can to insure that appropriate material is added and edited for this particular industry in general. Thank you! --Mmpartee 14:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think in this case, this entry needs to be weighed for its significance in the industry it serves. If there are indeed 9000 credit unions in the US, then this site serves almost half of them. I think that is significant and notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reasons stated above are spot on. Doesn't seem to be notable. --ThatBajoranGuy 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aguerriero. This reminds me a little of Alien Workshop (AfD); we need sources, yes, but WP:WEB is much better at distinguishing notable blogs from nonnotable blogs than it is at distinguishing whether or not a relatively unique site like this should have an article. Mangojuicetalk 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-01 09:43Z

Leðri

[edit]

non english word whose use is not widespread. Wiki is not a foreign dictionary Ohconfucius 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete - A sea monster created this word? Smmurphy(Talk)
Is it Icelandic or Hopelandic? Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Avengers

[edit]

Article dedicated to minor, unofficial detail in a recent comic book, so growth is highly doubtful. Does not differentiate between real world and fiction. Complete cruft. Chris Griswold 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret avengers
I think it'll be important later. There's going to be two avengers titles so i think the team will split permanently. But that's just my opinion, this article should probably just exist as a side bar in Civil War (comics)
The new title is Mighty Avengers.[www.newsarama.com/SDCC06/Marvel/mighty.html] --Chris Griswold 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i know. so, i'm thinkin' either they're just putting them in two books or two teams of avengers will exist, and they possibly will be enemies. anyhoo, merge.--Exvicious 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can be mentioned in the Avengers article, and it's not the name of a comic proper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Civil War (comics) --Newt ΨΦ 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with either Avengers (comics) or Civil War (comics). Registration Acts (comics) is definitely NOT the right place for it though. Hueysheridan 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Alexander (author)

[edit]

This doesn't strike me as being notable. --Spring Rubber 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person is the author of How to Become an Alpha Male (ISBN 1411636600) which has an Amazon ranking of 11,610 which is fairly decent. The article needs work, much like 99% of the rest of Wikipedia, but the subject seems notable enough to cover. Yamaguchi先生 08:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the original poster of the article, I put it up because (besides my being a fan) John Alexander is one of the top-selling authors in the dating tips for men/seduction genre. Selfimprovement 1 August 2006
  • Comment. If authors like "Juggler" and "Badboy" from the seduction genre have their own entries, John Alexander should too. This whole debate is ridiculous. Selfimprovement 1 August 2006
I have changed the above to a comment as this editior has already expressed a wish to keep the article once, which may confuse someone not paying attention to the signatures. --Spring Rubber 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenoch

[edit]

Hoax. See List of fictional martial arts#Other. And, as for keeping it as a fictional martial art, it's both non-notable and non-verifiable. --Mereda 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 14,900 G-hits. Quite a few are relevant, which may help on both counts. Also, there appears to be a place called Greenoch. Morgan Wick 09:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilder's Special

[edit]

This article was prodded a while ago, but the prod was deleted. Simply put, the article is non-notable fancruft. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, nor a fan site, and so an article on a weapon that has no impact on the game's plot has no place here. - Kalarchis 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep & rename. Sango123 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick amory

[edit]

This article is entirely WP:VAIN --Clappingsimon talk 08:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia advertisement

[edit]

Commercial advertisement --Mithunc 08:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was that no one had closed this after 10 days and no consensus had been reached, so I've decided to clean up the article and move it to the suggested location. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to close it the same way. Mangojuicetalk 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Mails of New Zealand.

[edit]

Unsalvagable, incomprehensible text. The title does not match the content (as far as there is any). Orignally created by an since then unused IP address. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Sango123 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaking suit

[edit]

Gamecruft. These suits are already covered elsewhere (such as Solid Snake and Metal Gear (series), not all of them are actually called "sneaking suits", and the whole mess is an unsourced orphan. This doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose.

This was prodded, but it was deprodded without comment (some days I wonder if there's any other kind) by Kappa (talk · contribs). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardus (game)

[edit]

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE (as per User:Peephole). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not sure if it meets this criteria "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." but the game won the 2005 award at [Game Ogre]. [The link]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Web-based game with an Alexa rank of 87,995. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep:In addition to the aforementioned reward, it has recived much aclaim:
    • Article in the Telekommunikations & IT Report (German)
    • Article in Der Standard (German)
    • As reported on the Pardus News Archive, Pardus has been mentioned in "the progress," Austria's largest student newspaper.
    • Pardus was mentioned in the popular FHM Friday Newsletter on Jan.28th [2005]: “This is a must see game,” wrote Portuguese Marco. “It is a massive multiplayer something like Star Wars, take a look and you won't regret it... “We had a glimpse. Let us know if it’s the dog’s testicles.
Thus, this is a keeper. (Note: Although this is the first edit on this account, I have made dozens of edits anonymously, never having had a reason to join.) AurakDraconian 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GrimGent 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to meet our requirements, though it could use some trimming. -- nae'blis 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep. This is a great, professionally programmed game with a growing user base. Why should the article be deleted? Just because the game is small? There are towns in Wyoming with Wikipedia pages, towns with fewer users than this game. . .--Heruka2006 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The arguments put forth here (and, incidentally, why are the claims here and not in the article?) are unmoving. Small towns have histories, and what is now a dot on the map was once a major battlefield or rail line. Games, on the other hand, have recent histories and ongoing development. When the game reaches ubiquity and is driving comment in other (off-line) sources, it will be time to explain it to the world in an encyclopedia. Until then, it's not an encyclopedia's purpose to alert people to the virtues of one or another game. Geogre 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A notable game and informative article. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not nearly notable enough.--Peephole 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per BattleMaster AfD and spirit of the law. This particular AfD as well as the referenced BattleMaster AfD are part of a recent effort to tar any and every browser-based strategy game with the "non-notable" brush, mainly by a severely misguided attempt to apply WP:WEB. I urge editors trumpeting "non-notable" to use common sense and to consider the spirit of the law in these cases. The reasoning and spirit behind the WP:WEB guideline is to keep Wikipedia from being flooded with vanity pages, random fan sites and the like. This reasoning is sound and can be put quite simply: Anyone can create a vanity web page. Anyone with a copy of MS Paint can create a web comic. Very few can create a successful browser-based game.
The creation of the sort of sites against which WP:WEB attempts to guard is a trivial matter. However, there is nothing trivial about creating a robust, multi-player game such as those in question. Creating such a game that manages to attract a user-base outside your own small group of friends is a feat in and of itself. Creating a game that actually attracts thousands of players and has hundreds online at any given time should be considererd extremely notable.
Please note that I'm not arguing for the inclusion of any and every online game that comes down the pipe, but each of the games that I've seen proposed for deletion in the last few days has a substantial user base. If the editors in favor of deletion honestly believe that these games are as dime-a-dozen as the vanity pages and such that WP:WEB is actually designed for, then perhaps they'd care to point me to the thousands of browser-based games that I'm apparently missing. Better yet, perhaps they can whip up a robust multi-player browser-based game as an example of the trivial and "non-notable" nature of these games (bonus points if it attracts any measure of user base outside their own circle of friends). In the time it takes them to do that, I'll be over here churning out hundreds of vanity pages, a few "Lost" fansites, and a webcomic or 50. --grummerx 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So where do you draw the line? What is a notable webgame and what is not? --Peephole 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's a valid question and warrants further discussion by the community at large. One of the points I've been trying to make is that in the absence of a clear line, it's up to editors to use common sense in assessing the merit of a particular article. It should also be noted that without a clear line, it's far better to err on the side of leniency rather than rashly deleting legitimate information from Wikipedia. --grummerx 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: While I think this article needs cleaning up and sharpening (much like a lot of articles that are not marked for deletion), Pardus is a real community with its own history, and its deletion is being determined by people who seem to have something against this. I fall completely on the side of leniency.--Heruka2006 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis_nomiyama

[edit]

This page has no content Denishn 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Bunny

[edit]

Should be deleted because it has no noticable basis in fact. If it did, however, it wouldn't require its own page

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seedy Squad

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerandy.com

[edit]

Gaming website which was started last year and seems wholly non-notable with an alexa rank of ~500,000. The claim to notability here is that they have a weekly podcast, which really doesn't cut it per WP:WEB. In addition, the article reads like an advertisement, is unwikified and a dead-end article. - Bobet 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was incorrectly placed. I moved it to its current placement in the discussion section of this AfD. Srose (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to weigh in. I find this strange that I get notified for advertising, when VGN Radio is filled with advertising and doesn't contain an NPOV in a lot of what it says, especially with the last sentence in the Synopsis, and that one doesn't get any notices. There are numerous other too. I don't mean for this to sound like some childish "well if he can do it, why can't I?" type of thing. If I can't do it, then I accept it, but I feel that it would be a tad unbalanced and unfair to do it for one article and not for another. I don't mean this to sound like I'm attacking Wikipedia, but I don't understand why this site has different ways of dealing with articles for committing the same offense. The notability thing I'm working on, so don't delete it. I and other Wikipedians have been working on that. Just be sure not to delete it and I swear that I will try my hardest to bring it up to Wikipedian standards. I'm trying my best here. Tyeman64 is right about the notibility. Scoring an interview with Major Nelson is a noteworthy thing. He's also right about another thing. What on Wikipedia isn't advertising? I see links to celebrity web pages and even porn sites on Wikipedia, but that isn't advertising? I fail to see how the Gamerandy.com entry is any worse than those. I and other Wiki people will try our best to bring this article up to proper standards, but please do not delete. Just give me a chance. Vgamer101 04:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel something else should be deleted, nothing stops you from nominating it yourself as long as you're not doing it just to prove a point (the relevant information on how to list something for deletion is at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion). On this discussion, the 'someone else does it so why can't i' thing doesn't really work, as you correctly identified; articles are supposed to be judged on their own merits. - Bobet 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, I could do that, but I don't want to get trouble started and have someone get irritated at me. I'll just leave a comment in their discussion section telling them to fix it otherwise I won't have much choice but to nominate it for deletion. Anyways, I'm currently trying to drum up some support to build up the entry as you can already see in it's page history with others such as Tyeman64, GamerAndy Fan, and MrD86. I'll try my best to bring this article up to it's absolute best potential, I just am having trouble at the moment coming up with and collecting the right info, although I am doing well in trying to find it. I'm currently collecting info for it. I would like for this article to stay up so I can make it better. I'm hoping I can, but you'd need to keep the article up for me to do that. Vgamer101 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism and nonsense. --Nlu (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mendel

[edit]

Seems like an attack, but I'm not sure on who; maybe the admins that speedied its previous versions? POV and more like an essay than an article, also has nothing to do with its title. I almost speedied it, but couldn't find a CSD to fit. --ais523 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tippins

[edit]

{{prod}} was removed without a reason. Does not appear notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD is meant to be removed. Griping about it in AfD nominations only encourages the perception that it cannot be removed by the General Public (a misconception that has already caused a lot of unnecessary stress when it was plaguing CSD). Also, since AfD is not a vote, you really don't need to add that big bold thingy at the end there before your signature. Nominations often set the tone of an AfD discussion, and a poor nomination is just asking for the ensuing discussion to be equally worthless. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're supposed to because it's polite, and it means the Intelligent Deletionist (ID) may just stop and think before arguing on AfD (assuming, of course, you provide a decent reason for removing it). However, you don't have to. "PROD removed without explanation" is not a valid reason for deletion, and is not relevant to an AfD. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert

[edit]

Teenage rapper recording albums at his home studio, unsigned, no indication of notability at all - I'd say he fails WP:MUSIC by quite a bit. Prod removed; some attempt at establishing the artist's notability on the talk page, but still doesn't appear to make it. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 8 hits on Ask.com and none of them seem to be about this particular rapper. 10 hits on google, with one appearing to be a Record of the Week for a British rapper. Not sure if these are the same rappers though. If they are and this article can show inpotance, I may change my opinion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, so tagged, two self-produced albums by a 14-year-old does not count as an assertion of notability. Re above comment, this person claims to be from New Zealand, not Britain. NawlinWiki 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Circumvallate papillae. Kimchi.sg 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumvallate papilla

[edit]

Please tell me if i'm wrong but is the title of this article not just Circumvallate papillae in the singular form? Basement12 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper (computer game)

[edit]

This project, however well intended does not meet the standards for notability. The game does not seem to have been featured in any press outside of the company's own Web site. The article has maintained more or less the same state since October of 2005. --Riboflavinflavor 17:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

La Salle College Computer Team was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

plain, simply not notable, though I've no doubt they're all a great bunch of guys and gals. --Ianb 10:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: There used to be a ton of these. Not notable. Geogre 13:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Must agree. Nice article, but not notable - delete - TB 13:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 15:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Average Earthman 16:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Jondel 04:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitar virtuosi

[edit]

No references required to be added to the list makes it nothing more than a POV favourites list. Not enough criteria for proper monitoring Anger22 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. delete as nominator Anger22 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. What's the purpose of your little note here? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAP - Micromobile Account Payments

[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is basically an advertisement for a product that will be released in 2010. I have also nominated Simon Botes, the founder. Wafulz 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, i have made repeated attempts to change the article to keep you happy, pklease tell me what it isthat is still wrong with this article. whats the diffreence between these articles and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Zennstr%C3%B6m

If i know what to change i will do it, please help me.

Thank you Goplett 11:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, both articles. Currently, the network for these payments is under construction, and I have not been able to find any secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... --JoanneB 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at what Niklas did:
"He is the founder of the KaZaA peer-to-peer file sharing network and Skype peer-to-peer internet telephony network."
Those are two massive systems and are world famous. Your product, however, holds no such distinctions or significance. Wafulz 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travelsupermarket.com

[edit]

Travelsupermarket is a pretty small player in this market, and the article just reads like corporate PR. This article should be removed, though it could be included on a list of travel websites. Blowski 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfuddle

[edit]

Just changed deletion notice to afd. Personally, I think it needs a rewrite. --nkayesmith 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanLegend Games

[edit]

This is a non-notable company. I added a prod tag to it, but it was removed by the creator after minor edits to the page. As prod tags are not supposed to be readded, I'm pursuing the more formal process. --Natalie 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the entry and removed no such tag. Please explain why this is a "non-notable company". Thanks.

You're right; my apologies - I misread the history. As for why it is a non-notable company, please read WP:CORP. My bad for forgetting the third template, everyone. --Natalie 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough I may have to change my vote to keep based on the fact the title was carried in gamespy and they were even named in the article. Can you provide information as to if this was mentioned in a mods section or given its own individual article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 02:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Us russian alliance

[edit]
  • I was the author of this article. I will admit that it needs clean up. I will admit that I made typos. Rjensen is correct, I did mean after the revolution. Geogre is also correct in saying that this article may be poorly named and titled. I will abstain from making a vote upon whether it should be kept, I have an obvious bias. But, I would like to say this. Most of references given to refute this article are based upon the interpretations of facts by authors. I have yet to see any factual evidence to refute the article. I'll admit that some statements were said from a point of view that was than neutral, but isn't this what Wikipedia is for? I contribute some, with good intentions, and somebody aids in the repairing of my mistakes, with good intentions. I'll make some changes, obviously I've already found two that should have been done different and BusterD said that he was willing to help. Honestly, I'm a freshly graduated high school student trying to add to a resource I appreciate. Am I looking for sympathy from that to be projected on my article? No. I'm simply saying I have stuff to learn, and the article has things to change. I don't see why it should be deleted instead of repaired without solid evidence that refutes the references that I have given.--67.142.130.29 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I yield to wisdom gained through years of experience in what BusterD said, you may choose to let it be deleted. These attacks on either my competence or my intentions are definately not worth this. This article is just not worth the work, nor the defense of it, against such a cynical and over-defensive community. While I will still contribute, I will say this. You know why most of you end up doing most of the work? Because you'd rather have a 'competent' friend create an article than repair an article created by an 'incompetent' new-comer. I advocate for immediate deletion of this article.
  • I believe this article should be repaired, not deleted. While some users may rant wildly, I'm not convinced the original author hasn't something meaningful to bring to the discussion. I'll assist him in correct citation, and if the pedia still thinks it deserves deletion, so be it. BusterD 03:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of howlers (opening sentence: "After the American Civil War, Britain was left with an ambition to again unite the colonies and Europe under British rule dubbed 'The United States of Europe'." -- he means after the Revolution and the sentence is wholly false. Scholars since 1919 have known the "alliance" was a myth (see multiple citations on TALK page from English and Russian scholarly journals). Author is unaware of any scholarship but pads the bibliography with rare books and archival sources that it is unlikely he used--thus trying to fake it for unaware readers. There are no redeeming features. Rjensen 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for cleanup (and possibly WP:NPOV). Article has many sources cited; I'd like to see it repaired rather than deleted. If specific objections can be claimed (and cited with verifiable sources), then please do so and work to change/improve the article in a meaningful fashion. Scorpiondollprincess 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Scorpiondollprincess Jacks n' Jill 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having read the article, I am inclined to agree with Rjensen. Em-jay-es 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article on notable historical alliance. Needing cleanup or NPOV doesn't justify deletion. Rohirok 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It doesn't justify deletion? Well, how about the fact that it's "personal pronoun + adjective + noun?" Us? We are in alliance? We are in alliance with "russian" something? This thing would need to be moved to US/Russian alliance. Secondly, it would need to be cleaned up. Third, it would need to be researched. Fourth, it would need to be cited. Just how much work are you folks willing to defer to "somebody else, some time, some where" just to avoid the very obvious conclusion that this article does not satisfy any of our criteria. Finally, did any of you actually look through the Wikipedia to see whether we already discuss this topic? We do, you know. Several places. Several times. Sheesh! Geogre 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I normally trust AfD voters, but when an AfD is this low in the list and I see habitual "keep everything oh my gosh please don't be mean with just enough work it could one day be great" as the only votes, it's time to act. This is a hoax article, and it is duplicate material. If a real argument for keeping appears by the time the nomination is 48 hr old, I'll stay my hand. Otherwise, I'm just going to delete and close it. If you don't read the article, don't vote on its AfD. Geogre 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Geogre... after reading this article, I'm inclined to believe it's a hoax. (For one, can someone please tell me what the memoirs of John Quincy Adams have to do with something that happened during the Civil War when he died in 1848?) I will give it a weak benefit of the doubt and say that those portions which can be sourced can be kept, but if and only if that happens before this AfD closes and it's not duplicated elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Kinu t/c 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Initial reading suggests that this isn't so much an outright hoax as it is some amateur historian's original research (the talk page comment I have as many references supporting the informal alliance as you have refuting them tells me that the author doesn't quite understand the WP:No original research policy. And a long bibliography, while impressive-looking, doesn't mean much unless the references are connected to specific points (how the hell do John Quincy Adams's memoirs connect to a so-called alliance thirteen years after his death?). --Calton | Talk 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cranky original research or hoaxness. A proper article on the topic would have very different refs and would be better being started from scratch. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of people thought there was an alliance until scholars in 1919 proved otherwise. The article is not based on the scholarship of the last 85 years and can not be considered reliable. Rjensen 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and urge editors to consider that the article was written in good-faith ignorance rather than sinister hoaxing. Article is neither neutral not factual. Karwynn (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You're right, Karwynn, it could have been ignorance, and I should not have been so definitive in calling it a hoax. This topic is a ripe one for hoaxes, however, and I was frustrated by the low-activity AfD listings beyond #50 on a list that can be decided by a single vote. I thought this was a particularly egregious example of an obvious delete and may have been biting the author when I meant merely to generate some folks to read it skeptically and not have us host more misinformation than we already do. Geogre 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1 Interactive

[edit]

This page does not assert notability, and thus fails WP:CORP --Natalie 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 album delete songs. Wickethewok 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will Survive

[edit]

Murder by Death is not a notable band just for having played with a few notable ones. Even less notable than Murder by Death is this album which does not need an entire page to itself. I am also nominating for deletion all song subpages of Who Will Survive so please indicate your opinion about that. --Stellis 10:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling illegal weapons

[edit]

I do not see how this could be made a real encyclopedia article. Was tagged prod with rationale "Indiscriminate list per WP:NOT, literally everything in the world is an illegal weapon in wrestling" (Liberatore, 2006). 11:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete at best this could be merged into wrestling article, but even then, you can make a list that goes on and on of illegal weapons. --Porqin 12:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination --RMHED 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, infinite lists are bad. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I was responsible for the original prod. hateless 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will now proceed to give the article a thorough and unnecessary Simon Cowelling.
    • Title is malformed. Should be List of illegal weapons in professional wrestling.
    • Title is borderline insulting, as anyone who knows anything about wrestling knows that the only thing that's actually illegal in wrestling is breaking character during a show. The term the creator is looking for is "foreign objects".
    • Article is heavily biased towards turn-of-the-millennium wrestling and WWE wrestlers (where's Ric Flair's roll of dimes, made famous while he was well outside the WWE?). The foreign object tradition of wrestling goes deep, to long before the era of broken kayfabe.
    • List is pointless -- as pointed out by prodder, literally anything can be used as a foreign object in wrestling.
Am I missing anything? Haikupoet 03:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclind, Inc

[edit]

I do not see evidence of this company meeting WP:CORP, and the article is blatant advertising (Liberatore, 2006). 11:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE and REDIRECT TO Blue's Clues. Rje 02:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue (dog)

[edit]

I love watching Don Cherry, and his dog is certainly prominent in the intro to Coach's Corner, but does the dog really deserve an article of his own? --PacknCanes | say something! 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabcity

[edit]

Delete NN site, WP:WEB, Alexa rank in 92,000 range [28], got a lot worse since the first AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETED. This title is a neologism being pushed by a source that doesn't come close to reliable, with extremely tenative links to writers who are already on the fringe (most of which seem to be of the form "David Icke once linked to the site that coined this term"). While the style was admirable (reporting on a fringe concept without accepting it), it is not and cannot ever be sourced to a reliable source due to the demonstrated lack of currency.

This AFD does not preclude a differently-titled article, sourced to reliable sources, about the sociopolitical concept of creating a problem in order to justify "solving" that problem (such as fabricating a war to declare martial law). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem-reaction-solution

[edit]

This lies somewhere between being complete original research, suffering from an incurable lack of reliable sources, representing an extreme point of view, and being a supreme example of complete bollocks. It was nominated twice before, here and here. I would ask the closing admin to pay careful attention to merits of argument here, rather than number of people voting. Thanks.Byrgenwulf 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is inherintly flawed, the very same point of view you cited expreses:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. --Striver 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please post new comments at the bottom of the AfD, Striver, instead of grandstanding like this. And note also that absolutely nowhere in the nomination did I mention anything about minority points of view. Byrgenwulf 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable conspiracy neologism, not found in any reliable sources. In the past AfDs, David Ickes' use was taken as evidence of notabilty/it not being a neologism- I mean c'mon. Be serious here, ok. JoshuaZ 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is NOT Alex Jones's website. KWH 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia needs less of this nonsense Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 13:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above --Guinnog 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC) changed vote see below[reply]
  • Delete from me too. As per Byrgenwulf's rationale, this is both original research and bollocks. --ajn (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research that fails verifiability due to the exclusive reliance on personal websites and partisan sources. --Allen3 talk 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this term may be relatively new, this is not a new concept. The article is about a power play that has been attempted throughout history, with only a few notable successes. In grade 11 economics, my class discussed similar strategies for macroeconomics, but I havent been able to find a more common term for the concept; if there is an exiting politics article for the same, I wouldnt mind if this article should be merged into another. Personally I think that this page would be a good list of possibly unverifiable attempts of any government to attempt this type of thing. The article currently focuses on current, more questionable attempts, but that can be corrected by expanding the list into earlier centuries, and by including more failures to balance the POV. IMO this doesn't classify as original research in entirety: the term isnt coined by the contributor; for most of the examples, there is external opinion that this strategy was employed (of course it is un-cited in many cases but that doesnt mean it was original research); while it may be a neologisms, it is worth including in Wikipedia as a record of either peoples perceptions or reality -- a rename or merge would solve this aspect of the problem. Jayvdb 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Political blog until the time when there are good scholarly sources dealing with this subject. --JWSchmidt 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Utter original research on the original research of an idiotsyncratic "writer." Absolute policy violation. Geogre 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,(see below), per Byrgenwulf. But given its history of AfDs and controversy surrounding whether or not it should be deleted, definately NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. And with regard to salting, we shouldn't do that to any article unless clear abuse is obvious IMO. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research based on a personal site. Aren't I Obscure? 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many comments above. violet/riga (t) 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I might be sceptical about the validity of conspiracy theory concepts (in fact I think they are complete bollocks too), they are a contemporary stream of human thought (albeit a minority viewpoint). I think if somebody can be bothered to add a entry on this then why should it be deleted? Flag it up as a conspiracy theory concept, if you must, but don't delete. Skandha ji 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think this article needs a cleanup, or else it should go into conspiracy theory. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article about such a controversial subject area should report opinions but not adopt them. This article meets that test. Furthermore, it attributes the opinions to the people who hold them, and provides verifiable sources for the assertion that they hold those opinions. Keep the article, but make sure that links to this article don't start sprouting all over the place (e.g., in Reichstag Fire, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and other alleged examples). Merger into Political blog would be inappropriate because that article can't accommodate this level of detail about all the different subjects that are discussed on political blogs. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Claims of orignial research, non-verifiability and unrelibale sources are complete bollocks, everything is stated as the beliefs of individuals, everything is sourced to those individuals and nothing is OR. Claims that self published sources are non-reliable is dishonest twisting of wikipedia policies, a website is a perfectly ok source of information for the belifes of those who wrote it. This very cumbersome wording gets 38 800 Google hits WITH quotation marks and millions of people subscribe to the views of Alex Jones. This whole afd is nothing more than a atempt to suppres the minority view.--Striver 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: WP:NPOV:
. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.
We can have Goatse.cx but not this? We can have The Headington Shark, but not this? --Striver 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please inform me on how to report on something that is not mainstream without using non-mainstream sources? That would be appreciated. --Striver 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOR? How does it fail nor? what would be a reliable source for a non-mainstream consept? --Striver 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources for non-mainstream topics exist all the time. For example, one can easily find articles in the New York Times that discuss creationism. One can find a few articles that mention the 9/11 conspiracy theories and full articles discussing the claim that the previous US presidential election was rigged. David Ickes himself has been reported in multiple major newspapers. However, this term has not made it into the mainstream enough for such sources to exist. JoshuaZ 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that. The very topic of Ickes 1999 speech was PRS, he hammered it into the audience. The speech is well refered to, but not its content. But still argue that there are plenty of non-mainstream referenced material on wikipedia, my favorit being goatse. yuck... --Striver 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you know how to give a "reliable " non-Mainstream source? What is your answer to WP:NPOV:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.
I would appreciate a answer. --Striver 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badgering each and every repsonse here will do you no favours. Regardless of the source the article is nonsense anyway - if it is of note you should be able to easy find multiple sources, multiple good sources. We're not here to mirror somebody elses views and website. And by the way can you explain to me (on the article talk page, not here) how come Madrid is listed with empty fields, London is all about "England" and both are listed under unnatural, Americanised, names? /wangi 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am expecting a real arguement, and are not content accepting empty unspecified references to some wikipolicy. "Regardless of the source the article is nonsense anyway"? Then why does it get 38000 google hits? Oh, you mean you dont like the consept? No problem, you dont need to, we have articles on both Atheism and Deism, and im sure you regard one of them as "nonsense". There are multiple good sources. This is a minority consept, you expect to have New Your Times as references for a minority consept? That is ridiculuous, then we could just as well delete most of the wikipedia non-mainstream articles. We do not need a single mainstream reference to represent the views of a minority, and that is a fact. As for your quotestions, they are editorial in nature, ask them on the talk page and we can work it out. --Striver 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is quite revealing how the deletion proponets have no arguement whatsoever, except for some non-specified reference to some arbitrary choosen policy. I guess it is better than writing "delete" and nothing else. Im still waiting to receive a well argued motivation. Just consider the template at the top... --Striver 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would appreciate any help on improving the article. --Striver 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not a supporter of the theory, but the article is potentially useful and relevant. However, the content needs to be rewritten so that it cites more authoritative sources. Perhaps the actual content could be merged with another relevant article?Blowski 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK I'm game. Change vote to keep and improve, per Reinoutr. It's rather in need of a cleanup and references, but I now accept the subject is not inherently unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of these are using biased sources. If it has to be kept, only keep in those such as Sidious using Naboo to springboard into Chancellorship, anything that is undisputed, and not conspiracy theories. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are missing the point: The people that use the term use it in 80% of the times to give a context to the claim that 9/11 was "self-inflicted wound" by a powerfull criminals. Just try watching one of Alex Jones movies, he spends large portions of his films giving historical context. --Striver 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Striver what WP:RS sources do you have and what evidence do you have for notability? JoshuaZ 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Rense [29] also Jone's and Icke? --Striver 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. Rense might help you slightly for a notability claim but in no way does does Rense meet WP:RS. JoshuaZ 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is irrelevant. It would be relevant if the article claimed the PRS to be factual in any special event, but it does not. It only claimes that some people belive in the strategi and attribute the consept to various events. And for that, you need nothing more than proving that the individuals hold that belief, and a blog is all that is needed for that. --Striver 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Are we reading the same document linked at WP:RS? Can you explain where in WP:RS it says this? (and bear in mind you still have notability to get through) JoshuaZ 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation. Anyhow, neither TerrorStorm, nor 9-11: The Road to Tyranny are blogs, and Prisonplanet.com is a Alternative News site, directed be several persons. --Striver 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to quote what follows directly after: not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject. I seriously doubt that your sources would pass the first two conditions I just quoted. Lazybum 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If i was to use the source as a source for a third party, i would have writen "CIA killed JFK". But i cant. I cant use Alex as a source for it. But i can use Alex as a source for Alex, i can write "Alex views that CIA killed JFK". That is the very essence of NPOV. If it was not that way, it would be impossibel to follow this policy:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.
The whole Reliable source issue is not applicable, of course is Alex a reliable source for Alex. I could live with Alex not being a reliable source for a "contentious" "third partie". That is ok. If i would to build a cite about myself, www.StriverOnWiki.com, it would be a great and reliable source for my views. The only issue would be if it is notable. I am not notable. Alex is. 25000 Google hits in february, grown to 38800 on July is notbale. --Striver 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex's notability is not relevant to whether this should stay. The notability of the phrase is. If you think it is notable because Alex is notable then it should be merged into his article. JoshuaZ 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that there are several people using this term, including but not limited to Rense, Icke, and 38800 google hits, that has grown from 25000 in less than six month. That is plenty of notability. Add to that it being used in most of Jones films, and there is no doubt about its notability. The term merits its own notability. More so than any of the other articles i have cited above. --Striver 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A collection of conspiracy theorist soapboxery, backed up by fabulously unreliable crackpot sources (see Alex Jones) and original research. Owner of article has for a long time resisted improvement, making the article a detriment to Wikipedia's reliability. The article just keeps getting worse and worse over time. The subject is a borderline notable neologism at best; the conspiracy theory pushing just doesn't make it worth it. Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia without this silliness. Weregerbil 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Owner? Is that a insult? Have you tried to give any constructive advises or sugestions? Have you tried in any way to add and improve the article? If not, then help me now, since i do need help in improving the article. Alex Jones has been on Both C-Span (regarding 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium ) and CNN News (Regarding Charlie Sheen), so much for "fabulously unreliable crackpot". Consider his list of interviewd people before labeling somebody as "fabulously unreliable crackpot". How many Hollywood pictures have you appeared on? Oh, is that Zero? --Striver 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have tried and you keep reverting and making the article worse. If a nut appears on television he is still a nut. Please do not argue your view by speculating on what other participants have or have not done in their lives. Trying to marginalize the opinions of others by attacking their character is not appropriate. Weregerbil 08:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question of how to have an article on a non-mainstream (contemporary) movement without using non-mainstream sources. The answer is that you don't. Not to suggest too much, here, but we shouldn't be reporting oddball stuff unless we have non-oddball sources. That's what Original Research is about. We report what others have reported. If we're taking direct evidence from someone like Jones and digesting it ourselves, then we're a secondary source -- we're journalists. Wikipedia is not a journalism site. Geogre 22:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many mainstream sources do you see in All your base are belong to us and Goatse.cx? There Is No Cabal? Xiao Xiao? Just take a look at Category:Internet memes. Further, there are more than Joenes, see the sources. --Striver 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seven years old and still a neologism? Does it need to break 15 years to not be it? This consept is broader than 9/11, although 9/11 is its apex--Striver 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What statment in the article lacks a reliable source? Give me a quote? Is there no reliable source for the claim that David Icke is attributed the phrace? Is there no relibale source for Alex using the phrace? Is there no reliable source on what events they view as examples of the phrace? There is no "reliable source" for 9/11 being a PRS, but the article is not claiming that. What specific statmen lacks a reliable source, making the article so unencyclopedic that it must be deleted? --Striver 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:NPOVNone of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. Question: Is this a article about a minority view, yes or no? --Striver 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38800 google hits using parentheses establish notability. Wikipedia is used to report about those tens of thousands of hits, not possible to creat what already exists. Maybe you meant that wikipedia should not have a article about this topic? --Striver 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not a measure to establish notability. JoshuaZ 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was a new one... i for once have heard "Passes the goolge test" lots of times on afd... --Striver 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources are reliable and should only be used as sources in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. See WP:V. David Icke, a major proponent of this theory, believes the world is ruled by giant lizards, including the Queen, various world leaders, and Kris Kristofferson. As evidence, he cites the fact that none of these lizards has even threatened to sue him for making the claims. Ergo, the claims must be true. Ergo, we must delete this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, what has Icke's belife in lizards-men has anything to do with the notability of the term or the verifyibility of people using the term? Are you sure you are not confusing "Truthness" of the term with Notability and vierifyiability? Nobody can argue that 38000 Google hits is non-notable, or that Alex and Icke are non-notable, and nobody doubds that the term is widly used in "modern conspiracy theories", so i dont get why you are involving "Truthness". Wikipedia clarly states that it does not care for truth, only NPOV, and this article is NPOV: It atributes everything as the beliefs of the people using the term.--Striver 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayvdb and Skandha. SkeenaR 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (more specifically, rewrite and cleanup) David Icke and Alex Jones and their conspiracy theories within the overarching Category:Conspiracy theories are clearly notable and important social phenomena, even beyond the confines of the internet. Given the current introduction, "Problem-reaction-solution is a term used in some modern conspiracy theories. It refers to the idea that governments create pretexts for actions such as war, rather than act on existing situations with which they are presented," I think it's clear that the idea belongs to the domain of conspiracy theorists. As long as we ensure that the article properly notes that its claims are not accepted by the public as large, I vote keep. Sertrel 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, SlimVirgin and Coredsat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... unless you need the space for more relevant articles. This is a concept which is out there and a page detailing it does give an overview of the concept. Simply because the concept fails to hold to any Popperian sensibility, does not mean that people will not need to be briefed on the concept. It is better defined here, where neutral and contrary people can get to it and make comment on it, than leaving it for people to read a bunch of conspiracy theorists when all they may want is the gist of the concept. It works the same way that it might be more helpful for people to get a rundown of the Elders of Zion than to read the thing. There is a large difference between the representation of a concept and claiming it is factual. Elders is not reputed to be factual, nor for that matter is considered well-researched or any of those other criteria people are claiming this needs to have. And yet, I would bet you have it here. Not because it is factual but because you are detailing the thing itself: a book or concept. As long as the article doesn't look like Icke and Jones could have written it, it really shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise I echo Sertrel and a couple others. Spoon!!
— Possible single purpose account: Spoon!! (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Yes, possible single purpose account, but who cares, this is not a vote. Read the top template, the guy/girl made a very good point. This is not about "truth", we have the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Do we have any reliable source for the content of that ide being real? No? Oh, right, its supposed to be a fabrication? But it still has its own article? So, that would render void all claims for this concept to be true in order to merit an article, right? That is, unless you regard the Protocols as real...--Striver 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I hope the closing admin reads that as a "keep" vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)
What I think she means is that, in its current state, it should be deleted, but it should be on something like Wiktionary. See also Transwiki Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting is not the way to go for solving content disputes. That is why we have a "edit this page" tab. Again, the voter just admited that the tactic merits an article. You dont put tactical terms on Wiktionary, they need a encyclopedic definition. Can you find Shock and awe on wiktionary? --Striver 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV means that articles should not state opinions as facts, but opinions as opinions. And that is what this article does, hence: the article is perfectly NPOV. If you mean that "More NPOV" means "Not containing what i disslike", you are arguing for the deletion of 90% of wikipedia. I really hate it when people twist the meaning of rules to promote their Point Of View.--Striver 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another one just spaming links and hoping some will pass. Wikipedia NOR does not stop any other representations of minority views, and there are only opinions stated in the article, an all the sources are used to show who holds the opinions. There is still no one that has explained with a good arguement why RS is relevant to quoting a opinion from the opinion holder. Is there anyone doubting that the people quoted hold those opinions? No? Then i gues there is no unreliablity in the sources. As simple as that. This is nothing more than the majority bashing a minority view. --Striver 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, who cares who holds the opinions, this article is about a term, and the people voting has not even addressed why the term is unencyclopedic. It is not a neologism if it was used PROMINENTLY in a University in 1999, and is growingly used now in 2006. Notability is not in question, so there is nothing more that people not liking the content of the article using the afd as a source of venting their disslike, instead of actually doing some edits. --Striver 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There is some level of notability but the article may be an attempt to spread a meme. At minimum, considerable cleanup is needed. I'd lean towards deleting without prejudice; if concept gets more traction, re-create and bring to neutrality. ProQuest hits: Janitor strives to unlock code behind graffiti: Public scrawling not unusual, police say, By: Luecke, Jacob, Columbia Daily Tribune (MO), Jun 20, 2006, shows a propaganda effort in operation (graffiti-ists are writing the phrase on walls and the story is about a janitor trying to find out what it meant). It goes back at least as far as 1998: Rainer Huck, The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Feb 8, 1998 pg. AA.7 is an opinion piece claiming global warming is a problem-reaction-solution fraud. Term is also used in an LTTE diatribe about a labo(u)r dispute in New Zealand: The Southland Times. Invercargill, New Zealand: Nov 24, 2005. There are a couple other less significant hits as well. Phr (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, if you view there is "some level of notability but the article may be an attempt to spread a meme" isnt the prefered solution to edit the article to fix whatever problem there is, instead of leting it get deleted? Afd's is not the way to correct content disputes. You just cited it being used in 1998 by somebody else than Icke, this totaly demolishes the neology claim. If i may ask, why could hit be "an attempt to spread a meme"? --Striver 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an engine for guerilla marketing. Phr (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont realy care if the hegel link stays, im just trying to save the article. We could formulate it to say that this guy associates it with Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. --Striver 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about preferring that earlier version. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That version is much better. If preferred, people could take the list to a different article. Also, that way the original article will not likely be nominated again.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying that i do not need RS since i am documenting opinions, i am sayin that NOBODY IS ARGUING THE REALITY OF THE OPINIONS! Is there a single person here that doubds that Icke or Jones use the phrase? No? Then why are you citing RS?! Their own wrods is RS for their own opinion, or is somebody argueing that "Jones words is not a reliable source for Jones views"? Is it?! Damn, i get uppset on hearing that sort of arguement! Per AnonEMouse above, People need to diferentiate between a article about something that is "complete bollocks" and a article that is complete bollocks. The Protocols of the elders might be CB, this term might be CB, but citing CB is not a good arguement for deleteing the Protocols of the elders article, nor this article. --Striver 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A nn variation on dialectics. This article does not appear to document an existing (notable) world view or argument type, rather than attempting to sculpt, de novo, the phenomena from the raw materials of Icke's writings. This article serves to form a non-existant into being, to create and promote, more than document. Hence it's WP:OR. Concerns about WP:V & WP:RS are also valid. (Disclaimer: these criticisms do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rothschilds and other Reptilian_humanoids, jewish world conspiracy, or other usual Icke villains). Pete.Hurd 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again: "these criticisms do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rothschilds and other Reptilian_humanoids, jewish world conspiracy, or other usual Icke villains". Has the article claimed so? If yes, were? --Striver 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim that the article is making thing up, just look a one randomly selected source in the article to clarly prove that the consept exists just as explained in the article, outside the article. --Striver 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being upset... --Striver 18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe you can show me WHAT SPECIFIC CLAIM in the article is either WP:OR WP:V WP:RS? Or did you just through them out and hope they would stick? A single quote from the article? --Striver 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable conspiracy terminology, found in conspiracy sources. If anyone hasn't noticed, the term conspiracy theory is being used in the media more and more every day, the NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, CSPAN, on every right-winger soap box trying to trash them, etc. While many may want to make CTs go away, they are instead growing more popular by the second, and like it or not, Alex Jones is also growing in popularity by the instant. The question one may ask is why. But if we are denied the info to do proper research about who they are and what they are saying and why, at places like wikipedia, we won't be making the CTs go away, we just will understand them less. I don't agree with anything from Icke and don't especially adore Jones, but there is a massive gravitating towards CTs for a reason. Is it because the public knows they are being lied to, as the Pentagon just showed us? Or is something else going on. Pretending that these people are non-notable because they aren't the subjects of Newsweek and the WSJ isn't going to make them go away. bov 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I think the other keep votes here have made strong cases for its inclusion. It does not appear to be OR at all, and presented in a way that it does not assert opinions - it reports opinions, which is acceptable. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I can't find and any basis for violation claims. Work is based on theory, it is not up to us to request a prof. of any theory, we simply write them. --TARBOT 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I am sorry, I used IE, I should have used firefox for main account not the bot account. --Tarawneh 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check TARBOT for the announced link to my we page in ar.wiki I have more than 11,000 edit there [30], 168 edits is enwiki [31], 3496 edits in commons including 2372 uploaded image to commons [32], I have contributions in meta, in foundation and more than 16 other wiki. --Tarawneh 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because conspiracy theories are notable does not mean that every minutia is. This phrase is not used and hardly discussed outside of the conspiracist circle, and it goes into the realm of fancruft. Lazybum 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is this bad faith yet? Maybe next time it's brought up for deletion? No? Well, maybe the fifth or sixth time, then? See you there! Edogy 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less than fifty edits, third in ten weeks. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What are we doing now then, discrediting every relative new user that is not addicted to Wikipedia? The user above has not many edits, but he certainly is not biased towards this article or created as a sockpuppet for this. Please remember that this is a discussion rather than a vote, as is stated above. If Edogy wants to give us his 50 cents on the matter (although not stated very neutrally, he brings up a valid point, that of possible bad faith in the nomination), he should not be reacted upon like this. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take exception to the accusation (or pondering aloud, or whatever) of the nomination being in bad faith. Both previous times the article was kept because there was no consensus, because the discussions were absolutely inundated with sockpuppets and/or "single purpose accounts". It is not as if the Wikipedia community unanimously decided to keep it. The bottom line is that the article is of circumspect validity, and that is why I nominated it. Byrgenwulf 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I take exception to the continual attempts to discredit those who want to keep it. Reinoutr is quite right, this isn't a vote, and everyone is entitled to a say. As you know, where there is no consensus we keep articles. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you raise it at the relevant policy page. Oh, and "circumspect" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means[34]. --Guinnog 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to discredit anyone here: remember that, in my nomination, I stated clearly that this isn't a vote. I was merely pointing out that this isn't a bad faith nomination, and that previous AfDs didn't have "keep" results, but "no consensus", rather. I have no problem with that either: I was merely clarifying my own motivations, which I am entitled to do, am I not?
And "circumspect" means exactly what I think it means, thankyouverymuch (said Humpty Dumpty to Alice). Maybe "dictionary.com" doesn't think so, but I just looked it up in a real dictionary (you know, with pages?), and am satisfied that I used it correctly. Please be more circumspect when attempting to correct people, and look up the term "transferred epithet" (and if you look carefully enough, you might find a very small case of zeugma back there somewhere: life's too short to use language plainly, don't you think?) : P
On the other hand, Striver has been very busy arguing with every "delete vote" - not that I blame him (on the contrary), but let's not start employing double standards, shall we? Byrgenwulf 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that I felt the nomination was in bad faith and that certainly is not my opinion. I stated that Edogy made a valid argument in a discussion and that it therefore is not fair to treat him as a sockpuppet just because he has only few edits. And yes, I also feel that Striver is overdoing it with regard to commenting on every delete vote. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shall we stop having a meta-argument here then? I'm battling to count the number of colons I have to place before my comments! Byrgenwulf 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hackett

[edit]

NN Architect with limited portfolio and indefinite status in his field. Refer to AfD discussion for Alastair Hall (his business partner) UARG 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Triad alliance

[edit]

An article describing a non-notable fanmade "alliance" within an already non-notable webgame (which has also been put up for deletion). Should at least be merged and in my opinion be deleted all together. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS. Peephole 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Naturalists' Association

[edit]

Non-notable group. I tagged this as {{db-group}} twice, but a user insists that this asserts its notability with relevant, independent sources. I see no sources but the organization's website. 82 Google hits for "Minnesota Naturalist's Association" with most being from the organization's website. Metros232 12:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chouettes Coquettes

[edit]

Local social organization Richardjames444 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake - if this was a vote I might say no consensus, but after the delete arguments that bundled all three together, good arguments were presented that this particular earthquake stands above the other two, and no counter-arguments were presented. Delete July 2006 North Atlantic Earthquake and July 2006 Taiwanese Earthquake. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 North Atlantic Earthquake

[edit]

These are non-notable earthquakes; perhaps these articles would work better on Wikinews. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as not verifiable as meeting any guidelines through reliable sources. Wickethewok 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (online game)

[edit]

Not notable browser game, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Peephole 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sir Peephole could explain why this article fails to meet certain quality requirements. Blackreign 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Peephole did explain, in his nom. This game and the associated site fail to assert notability and fail the guidelines set forth in WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE ... therefore a delete is in order. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - It's worth noting that the standards used by WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE would lead us to delete 95% of List of multiplayer browser games since very few assert notability outside of the number of players they have (which doesn't qualify). Although, looking through the list, about 95% are listed for deletion. A shame if you ask me, because there are a number of people who have put in a lot of effort creating these fairly detailed entries. -- Matty j 05:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - After reviewing the standards set out in WP:WEB, and taking note of Peephole's obvious vendetta against articles related to this genre of game, I've changed my mind. The only real standard of notability relevant to these games is the number of players (a non-accepted standard according to WP:WEB), and some of these games are very notable in that regard. This game, for instance, has had rounds of tens of thousands of players, as I recall (my brother used to play it). These articles should still fall under the verifiability criteria, but that's a different concern. -- Matty j 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I agree on Matty j, I understand the rules and know they are needed. However, everybody knows Wikipedia will always be subject to subjectivity and therefor cannot be considered a reliable source. Therefore I see no reason why articles that are usefull to a reasonable community should be deleted onlyk because they can not be verified and or are common knowledge. Jaerock 15:12, 5 August 2006 (CET)
    • Comment Verifiability (WP:V) is an official wikipedia policy... --Peephole 14:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Most of the information is verifiable via the official Dominion website which is listed at the top of the 'links' section. From there, past round-winners can be obtained through two searches of valhalla, first a search of each round, looking for the top dominion, then a search of nickname, which can match the nickname to the dominion. For example the largest dominion in round 30 was Vrijheid. If you search for "Blackreign" then Vrijheid will be shown as his dominion in round 30. Hence round winners can be verified this way. The acronyms/terms & definitions are the dominion communitys short-handed way of spelling many commonly used saying from the "rules" (aka "scribes") which are accessible via the main dominion page. These abbreviations can be seen in use on the messageboards. They are effectively a form of 'dominion language'. Asking for this wikipedia page to be verified by a journal article is ridiculous. Could peephole offer a proper explanation of how this could be resolved instead of just attempting to cause unneeded trouble? Deranged 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment All those lists are pure fancruft and don't belong in an encyclopedic article. If you want to improve the article, delete those and find reliable sources reporting on the game so we can verify its notability and decide if its notable enough to be kept on wikipedia. --Peephole 15:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The article is indeed a copyvio and will be deleted as such. Rje 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Systems Software

[edit]

Not sure if this is notable or not. I don't see any assertion of it passing WP:CORP, the article admits that it is a small to medium company. That said it may well be hugely notable, but most of the results on google are in german. ViridaeTalk 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep Lea Hall, Tile Cross, delete the others. I will not take the author's frustrated grumble as a request to delete all of his/her work. Mangojuicetalk 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Hall

[edit]

several new articles were created by new user User:Siper101 conserning the Birmingham area. I don't belive any are notable. they are

Jon513 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U/G Madness

[edit]

One Magic: the Gathering deck type, out of hundreds. Article reads like a play guide rather than an encyclopedia article. We already have an article that gives an overview of deck types. I am a longtime Magic player (even played with this deck type!) and I still don't think this is notable enough for its own article.Andrew Levine 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golgothian Sylex

[edit]

Previously deleted dorkcruft: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golgothian Sylex. Andrew Levine 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - there is no consensus to delete, plus the 'keep' voters have presented very articulate and powerful reasons to keep. - Richardcavell 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoabolitionist

[edit]

article itself admits, or admitted when nominated, [36] that this is an infrequently used term, not used at all by the historians supposedly subject to it. The citation for such a use is one chapter, which is by a distinguished historian, but this does not constitute notability. "Neo-abolitionist" is itself a neologism, not recognized by the OED. Most of the article is a miscellaneous collection of information, including incidental uses of the term "new abolitionist" in various contexts, having nothing to do with the alleged central meaning, and many of them pre-dating the 1960's. Septentrionalis 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Septentrionalis 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is indeed in current use--numerous examples cited below from recent scholarly and popular journals. Alas Wiki has some neo-confederates who hate and belittle the abolitionists but that is not good reason for removing an article that talks about the revival of abolitionist sentiment in the 1960s. It was Howard Zinn for example who wrote a famous book about the Civil Rights movement that identified them as "new abolitionists". ( SNCC: The New Abolitionists by Howard Zinn (1st ed 1964, new ed 2002). The term has been regularly used by scholars of slavery/Civil War/reconstruction for some 40 years. The question of who are the "new abolitionists" is discussed for example (June 2006) in the forum for historians, "Cliopatria" at HNN. It is used by librarians [37]; it is used in the civil rights community [38], The magazines use the term, as "This general perspective on the sectional conflict is already well represented by the Neoabolitionist school of Early American historians, and informs important works by scholars such as Paul Finkelman, Leonard Richards, Donald Robinson, and William Wiecek. Wills lacks the deep understanding of the issues that has made these authors' work indispensable; his book is therefore a major disappointment." from National Review Dec 2003 at [39] The scholarly journals use it: The American Historical Review (Feb 2005) p 215 ("the iconoclastic historian Stanley M. Elkins reinterpreted the rebellious slave as a neoabolitionist fantasy.) One popular Civil Rights magazine calls itself “The Journal of the Neoabolitionist Movement of the 21st Century” [40] Rjensen 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article that cites 15 books in its References section, an argument that the article should be deleted needs to be a lot stronger and far more well researched than "it's not notable and only occurs in one chapter". Uncle G 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those 15 references are to any use of the phrase "new abolitionists" in any context since 1877; not to the alleged central meaning. Septentrionalis 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the sources are recent and deal directly with the topic at hand; most are by prominent scholars--4 of whom won the Pulitzer Prize for History (McPherson, Woodward, Fehrenbacher, Hahn) Rjensen 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • JSTOR indexes 40 scholarly journals before 2001 Here are some citations using searchword = "neo-abolitionist" and "neoabolitionist"
          • Journal of the Early Republic > Vol. 21, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 736-739
          • The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 62, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 136-137
          • The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 59, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), p. 541
          • The Journal of American History > Vol. 80, No. 1 (Jun., 1993), pp. 275-276
          • The Journal of American History > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Sep., 1992), p. 670
          • The Journal of African History > Vol. 32, No. 2 (1991), pp. 277-312
          • Canadian Journal of African Studies > Vol. 34, No. 3, Special Issue: On Slavery and Islam in African History: A Tribute to Martin Klein (2000), pp. 512-531
          • Journal of the Early Republic > Vol. 19, No. 4, Special Issue on Racial Consciousness and Nation-Building in the Early Republic (Winter, 1999), pp. 691-712
          • The American Journal of Legal History > Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 108-109
          • Callaloo > Vol. 20, No. 4, Eric Williams and the Postcolonial Caribbean: A Special Issue (Autumn, 1997), pp. 800-816
          • The American Historical Review > Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 523-524
          • The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 62, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 727-766
          • The American Historical Review > Vol. 101, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 1122-1138
          • The American Historical Review > Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 536-537
          • The American Historical Review > Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), p. 1278
          • The History Teacher > Vol. 25, No. 3 (May, 1992), pp. 263-277
          • The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 56, No. 4 (Nov., 1990), pp. 665-694
        • Does anyone want additional cites--we can look at EBSCO and MUSe and various other online collections. Rjensen 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just dumping a set of search results into the discussion, without looking at what the found articles actually contain, does not address let alone refute the argument that this is just a collection of works that happen to use the word "neoabolitionist" somewhere, none of which actually explain and discuss the concept of neoabolitionism. Uncle G 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pmanderson has a vague complaint. His opening sentence says it's "infrequently used" --but a quick check of JSTOR shows it is in current use by the major history journals. It is also used in high-brow popular journals (such as National Review.) The second sentence (The citation for such a use is one chapter) is false--the article gives numerous cites in context. It's a weak complaint to say "Neo-abolitionist" is itself a neologism"--well yes it was a variiation of a slogan invented arounf 1910 by the NAACP. In reference to historians it has been used by established scholars (like Pulitzer prize winners) for 40 years. The sentence "Most of the article is a miscellaneous collection of information" is false-the article goes in some depth into the historiography of slavery and reconstruction, and keeps its focus on the main issues. The sentence "many of them pre-dating the 1960's" is false" (there are two cites pre 1960--when the NAACP use is discussed and when Vann Woodward said (in 1974) "by the 1950s a neoabolitionist mood prevailed among historians of slavery" Rjensen 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some recent usage examples from leading journals: 1) "Because Hummel also places slavery front and center in the approach to war, his early chapters resemble a standard (and well-crafted) neo-abolitionist account." [Reviews in American History 32.2 (2004) 184-195]; 2) "the hints of modern humanistic sensibilities sensed by neo-abolitionist Anglophone commentators" Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 5:3 2004 by Joseph C. Miller; 3) "longstanding scholarly precedents buttress Goodman's claims, set in the 1960s by James McPherson, Howard Zinn, Martin Duberman and other neo-abolitionist historians when first picturing the abolitionists as racial egalitarians." [Reviews in American History 27.3 (1999) 397-405 by James Stewart] 4) "The problem is not that Carry Me Back is generically neo-abolitionist but, rather, that it swallows too uncritically the abolitionists' worldview. The book has a tendency to coast on abolitionist logic, rather than striking out in new interpretive directions." [Reviews in American History 33.4 (2005) 518-526 by Masur] Rjensen 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Serama

[edit]

This article is copied directly with little or no editing from the West Michigan Force web page at http://westmichiganforce.com/bio_ted.htm and may therefore be violating copyright (no clear notice on that page). In addition, Coach Ted Serama does not meet the notability requirement necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more information. --M4701 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This is a close one - while Mangojuice certainly has the weight of words, his main argument was not left unaddressed and, as the only other opinion to follow it was 'delete', I don't believe it was persuasive enough to turn the consensus here into a mere majority.

Another keep argument I find interesting is Coredesat's assertion that "It's no Black Lotus, but can anything ever be?" - well, Black Lotus was merged with Power Nine, so if that's more important than this and it doesn't get its own article... --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering)

[edit]

Individual Magic cards not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahamoti djinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razia, Boros Archangel, etc Andrew Levine 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Alliances. Not notable enough really.VoA 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IYH

[edit]

Nonnotable Internet wrestling show; author removed prod tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this should be deleted, the show has had as many as 31,000 downloads for one interview.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ansary

[edit]

Let's list the reasons here. Reason one: Generic conspiracy theorist whose main 'claims to fame' are a Google video webcast, a public access TV show, and a blog - fails WP:BIO. Reason two: Google brings up meager results. Reason three: His personal website has an Alexa ranking in the 3 millions. And finally, reason 4: The bulk of the article, according to the history, was written by himself. Crystallina 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's Music Service

[edit]

Delete. Advertisement - the author's name is the name of the company. Prod was removed by the author. Bruce1ee 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and delete it. There are so many articles in Wiki these days that are vandalized that trust for Wiki is going down. Why don't you consider deleting the article under 'Michael Johnston' as well.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jack Armstrong (baseball player). JIP | Talk 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Armstrong (baseball pitcher)

[edit]

This articles is being considered for deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Global warming. Mangojuicetalk 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropogenic global warming

[edit]

Yet another bizarre cruft filled essay about global warming, scientific consensus, etc.. used to be a redirect, either delete, or redirect and protect--172.162.149.247 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What then does this article add to the global warming controversy article? Count Iblis 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed: Which aspect? Aren't you the one who says a title shouldn't presuppose things? Your title implicitely assumes "anthropogenic global warming" and the article then goes on and tries to use "balanced" language ("some advocates", "others") while withholding the fact that "some advocates" is essentially the whole scientific community ("advocates" - WTF?), while "others" is a small group of lost souls and a bunch of pundits, lobbyists and politicians. "Some people think Mahatma Gandhi was just some dirty nigger, while some others disagree". The alleged topic of the article is handled extensively in a number of other articles. --Stephan Schulz 17:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wiktionary has an entry on "cockeyed" now. Mangojuicetalk 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cock-eyed

[edit]

A page of nonsense BalfourCentre 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook features

[edit]

In what way is this article not a how-to? We have a decent article on Facebook but I can't see the point of this, much of which is written in the first person; the sole source appears to be Facebook itself, and a lot of the text is instructional. Just zis Guy you know? 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing to merge into Facebook, WP:NOT a how-to or Facebook's FAQ. --Kinu t/c 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an instructional manual. Rohirok 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge: I vote for deletion too, at least with regard to the "how to" section listing the features. As for the timeline of site modifications, I think some of the events on the timeline are relevant (for example, the fact that the introduction of groups and, later, photos, significantly changed the way people used the facebook). I had added a few of these things to the original article, and as people added more and more events to this list, it at some point split off into this separate article. Most of the timeline is really of questionable significance though, so I think the bulk of it can be safely scrapped. NBS525 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not Facebook's FAQ. Also, merge and delete is not allowed, per the GFDL. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The timeline of site modifications is a useful history, if the article gets deleted, I think it (the timeline) should be merged into Facebook. --Varco 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Merge: I read this article primarily for the timeline of site modifications and I would hope it would be merged with the other Facebook article as well. 12:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps this article could be renamed Timeline of Facebook.com Modifications and the "FAQ"/"how to" section of it could be deleted. It seems like the timeline is the unique part of the article, and this way, it wouldn't cause the Facebook article to become so long that it's problematic (again). NBS525 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret order of marlowe

[edit]

This article is a highbrow, but fairly transparent, hoax. Aside from the wildly unverifiable nature of the claims, we have the misuse of the word 'antecedent' and the fact that 'little about the purpose of the group is known'. The spelling of 'accompany' as 'accompanie' cited in an alleged early 19th-century document would have been staggeringly dated by that stage, too. Total WP:BOLLOCKS. AlexTiefling 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh...you're not meant to tell them we've decoded that yet! (Sorry!) Byrgenwulf 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Marlowe only wrote the comedies, Oxford wrote the tragedies, and Bacon wrote the sonnets. (Though I always liked the rather less-supported theory that Elizabeth wrote them.) Fan-1967 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff Albums

[edit]

Delete - Superfluous...the article isn't about the singer, (she has her own article), and the bulk of the article summarizes two albums, each of which have their own articles on WP. This entry isn't needed. Akradecki 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhavric

[edit]

I'll use the PROD summary that User:Wwwwolf had used, it sums things up really well: "A "slang term" that gets me whole 26 google hits, barring repeats. Quasi-nonsensical, original research, you name it." Metros232 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Will redirect Genesis 5 to Genesis; it doesn't make sense otherwise. All the info here is already in Genealogies of Genesis. Mangojuicetalk 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 5

[edit]

Pretty cool theory, even plausible, but original research. NawlinWiki 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the lengths some people will go to to support their delusional prehistoric beliefs. Doesn't this now reduce the age of the earth to what, about 4,500 years now? — Dunc|☺ 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is about the numbers in Genesis 5, not the creation myth. My Genesis 5 page is based on Chapter 7 in "Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic" by Robert M. Best, published in 1999. Greensburger 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have looked at the Amazon summary of the Robert Best book, [46], and it seems like this may not be original research after all. If so, the article needs to be edited to make clear (at the beginning!) that this is reporting on someone else's theory. (No comment at this point on whether the theory is notable or not.) Also, the title of the article should be changed to make clear that the article is about Best's theory, not about Genesis 5 itself. NawlinWiki 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, Young_earth_creationists#The_Teaching_of_Genesis, and Genealogies of Genesis. Uncle G 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I added the line you suggested at the beginning. Regarding the title, if you change the title to "Genesis 5 (mistranslation theory)" I would have no problem with that. I don't know how to do it without cutting and pasting to a new title. Is that what you want me to do? Greensburger 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move, Clean and KeepAgreed. I don't think it's OR (I might be mistaken), no matter how absurd I think the theories are. It needs a damn good clean, and needs to be made understandable by the layman, and a page move as per Greensburger, but seems alrightish to me HawkerTyphoon 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Young Earth creationism. There are so many variations in the theories, some major, some minor, that I don't think it makes sense to create separate articles for the variations. They should be consolidated in one place, and will be easier to find there. This one doesn't look sufficiently notable as distinct from the others. Fan-1967 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Genesis 5 page is a textual criticism of mistakes (ancient mistakes) in chapter 5 of Genesis and has nothing to do with YEC.
  • Comment: I'm not sure what to say about this. Outright deletion seems too extreme a solution, as the topic of the ages of people mentioned in the Bible is something that has received verifiable treatment, and is a notable topic for younge earth creationists, many evolutionists and Bible scholars. If the article represents the particular views of certain researchers, this ought to be acknowledged in the text. Perhaps some of the content ought to be merged into Genesis or Young earth creationism or Age of the earth, provided such content is properly referenced and incorporated in a relevant way. In any case, the content should not be retained under the present article title. Rohirok 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR, per nom. First sentence of article is, "This page is a commentary on..." Wikipedia is not a soapboax; Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. Don't write commentaries; write verifiably sourced articles on notable subjects. A page of commentary on one chapter of one book in order to express a particular point-of-view in an argument is not encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a new section in Genealogies of Genesis per Uncle G. (I'm the nominator but I haven't exactly voted yet, so this is my vote after reviewing the comments.) NawlinWiki 19:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I'm trying an experiment. I just added my Genesis 5 material to Genealogies of Genesis to see if there is any hostle reaction from the YECs. If there is none, I will delete most of the material from Genesis 5 but retain a short orientation paragraph and a few lines of See Alsos to Sumerian king list, sign-value notation, place-value notation, Atrahasis, and other pages that provide a background on ancient numbers and the flood myth. If somebody deletes the new material from Genealogies of Genesis, then the Genesis 5 page should remain, to avoid an editing war. Greensburger 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Scorpiondollprincess who wants facts, it is a fact that people do not live to be 969 years and father children when they are more than a century old. It is also a fact that people do father children in their late teens and early twenties and live to be 36, 75, and 93. It is also a fact there was a river flood in southern Iraq around 2900 BC that interrupted the Jemdet Nasr period in ancient Sumer and resulted in a series of flood myths including Atrahasis, Gilgamesh flood myth, Ziusudra, and Noah. It is also a fact that when people wrote numbers in clay about that time, they used a variety of incompatable number systems that resulted in confusion and mistranslation. Greensburger 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to merge. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Scorpiondollprincess. Dionyseus 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no need to merge. A page should stay to avoid an edit war? Makes as much sense as the article, I suppose. Oh, and Dunc's comment is valid -- at least for those who insist on basing the age of the earth on a book written between 2500 and 2800 years ago (fortunately, the earth and the universe have resisted the temptation to cooperate.) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have minimized the Genesis 5 page to one table that reports the numbers as they appear in 3 ancient sources. I cited the scholarly book from which I got the numbers. Greensburger 04:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is not the original page that prompted an OR accusation. It is now simply a table of numbers from the scholarly text cited. Greensburger 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Krstanoski-Blazeski

[edit]

Non-notable stub GilliamJF 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was incomplete, adding here. MLA 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo teen newspaper

[edit]

nn, vanity, no citation --- Delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as basically nonsense. —Mets501 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not nonsense. It's making an assertion, without any backup to it's claim. (Remember, patent nonsense is incoherent.) It might have been created as an attack, but I removed the one POV sentence (of two). Anyway, there's no good claim to notability, and it appears to be a WP:HOAX. alphaChimp laudare 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I am withdrawing my opinion until further evidence/reasoning is established. alphaChimp laudare 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, however it's neither nonsense nor a hoax, as it has a website [47]. As for a claim to nobility, it seems it has won alot of awards, see the link at the bottom of the homepage. hateless 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem is that the awards are local-based...? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep- little paper, big heart

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam presentations

[edit]

Samvertising. NawlinWiki 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Bastard

[edit]

No assertion of notability, reads like spam, and basically only one author who is trying to put links to it everywhere. I am also nominating Mailbastard, Mail bastard, Mail-bastard, and Malebastard as redirect pages. —Mets501 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourgeois Inc

[edit]

Looks like nonsense, orphaned, can't find any net based corroboration. Solipsist 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Hamas. (Actually just redirected, the info is already there under the section "other".) Mangojuicetalk 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fateh

[edit]

Delete or Merge into Hamas:Wikipedia is not a place to promote Hamas websites. This Al Fateh article has been merged into Hamas, but Zeq reversed the move. The current Al Fateh article is a stub promoting the Hamas media, which has no value as a reliable source. It should be either deleted, or, as gently proposed before to Zek, merged into Hamas, per Wikipedia:Notability and per the simple ethical guideline of abstaining from promoting terrorist organizations' medias. Tazmaniacs 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was incomplete, adding here. The first three comments were already on this AfD. MLA 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Tazmaniacs concern about promoting Hamas web site is appariciated but the goal of the entry is encyclopedia one not promotional. I am sure those to whom the web site is trageted at are not looking for it on English Wikipedia. This is a valueable article about a notable propeganda outlet and concept of eduating children in areas of conflict. Zeq 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is not enough information here to justify a separate article. This website is an initiative of Hamas, so it should be covered in the Hamas article. Rohirok 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge) It is far from notable enough, and Wikipedia should not develop into a web directory. Bertilvidet 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable and well-cited. I appreciate concerns of WP:NPOV and that should be guarded against, but I agree with Zeq. This is notable and sourced. Please see "Wikipedia is not censored". Wikipedia has no ethical guidelines that say, "don't mention terrorist organizations." If a subject is notable and verifiably sourced (and does not violate WP:NPOV), then it merits a place here, even if you disagree with the subject's philosophy. We do not have a "simple ethical guideline of abstaining from promoting terrorist organizations' medias." Scorpiondollprincess 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are guidelines against spamming, and all the more spamming in favor of a terrorist organization. And if I wrote "simple ethical guideline", it is precisely because I'm not talking about Wikilawyering, but about abstaining from promoting what should not be promoted. It is a "simple ethical guideline", because I believe it is best left to your own conscience. Tazmaniacs 14:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindrot

[edit]

This appears to be an article about a non-notable band. Note that it was previously repeatedly deleted. Cyde↔Weys 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Communications

[edit]

Does not meet the WP:CORP criteria.-- JoanneB 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good scientific practice

[edit]

Essay in namespace, body of text is essentially a copy/paste, rest is just a strange personal essay.--172.162.149.247 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge - article kept as it is and tagged as it's not been made clear here what is actually "worth keeping". --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phyresis

[edit]

I have never heard this term, and I am an avid Magic: The Gathering player. That should tell you all you need to know. -- Grev 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sligh

[edit]

Same reason as U/G Madness -- namely, WP is not a strategy guide. -- Grev 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Yazdanpanah

[edit]

Vanity Behnam 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'Arcy Legard

[edit]

Non notable. Seven Google hits. --Missmarple 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neatwords

[edit]

Prodded by me, deprodded. Re-prodded by User:Wwwwolf with reason "nn webzine - 191 google hits for "neatwords", no incoming links, no alexa data." Might I add, a blatant advert too. Morgan Wick 18:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. WP:NOT does not allow manuals. --Madchester 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft items and equipment

[edit]

It was prodded prod was removed by a anon with no reason so I listed it here. It reads like a game guide and so violates WP:NOT. --Whispering 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by warp core breach.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Hera

[edit]

A brief article copied from the Star Trek wiki at Memory Alpha (link). Was apparently mentioned in one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Not notable. TomTheHand 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin lara

[edit]

Completely non-notable. Unknown actor/student. Gary Will 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete & redirect. Mangojuicetalk 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Shower

[edit]

Protologism that fails WP:V with no WP:RS. Article was {{prod}}ded [48] and removed w/o comment or explanation [49]. Full disclosure: I am the contributor who originally {{prod}}ded article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - keep arguments come from single-purpose accounts, and although they have made a commendable attempt to demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia policy, the case for deletion has adequately demonstrated that the offered sources cannot be considered to meet WP:V and WP:RS. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperiums

[edit]

Non notable webgame, no reliable sources seem to cover it. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is only 227,093 Peephole 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (Do Not Delete). This game has a cult-like following. Those 4000+ players are insanely devoted to this game. I know this because I play Hyperiums, and have been playing it for +5 years and unless the game is shut down I don't forsee a time in which I'm not playing it. I contributed the bulk of this article and maintain it aswell. Everything on it is relevant to the explaination of the game.--ButtCheeks 7:02, 2 August 2006
  • Comment (Undecided). According to their website, they have around 4,300 active players. This one is too close to call for me. --Thorne N. Melcher 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Do Not Delete). I have played this game for several years; the community has been large and active throughout this time. It has a fair amount of reputation in the online gaming community and attracts much more attention than many wikipedia entries.--Rhythmythyc 1:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (Do Not Delete But Clean Up). Hyperiums is referenced in various only game directories like www.mpogd.com There has also been articles about it in magazines specialised in video games. Perhaps this artilce should be made shorter to only include a brief description of the game and it's main features. I will not argue whether the game is notable or not but accroding to WP:NNOT notability should not be a criteria for inclusion in wikipedida. And anyway as it can be seen here [[50]] "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites". So according to me the notability argument does not stand and part of the article is in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Therefore this artilce needs clean up but it should not be deleted. RajivShah 10:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the article was referenced in game magazines please cite them. --Peephole 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A recent reference of the game was in a french game magazine called "Jeux Video Magazine spéciale été" I do not have the URL of the website of the magazine yet (but I am working on getting it). However here is a website where one can find a copy of the article published in that magazine [51]. RajivShah 14:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Here are some other web references of the game: [52], [53] (french),[54] (english). The magazine I previously mentionned does not have a proper website however it has a blog which mentions hyperiums (though it does not give the whole article) [55]. RajivShah 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom, no notability (asserted or otherwise) and without any real content. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable; no real case being made for keep.--Runcorn 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, all hyperiums are notable and a readership of 5000 people is enough to make a newspaper or periodical notable!! --64.132.163.178 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only count a little over 4000 players (according to the ranking page). Appearantly, Hyperiums is a dying game. Appearantly people do not find the game *that* interesting anymore. Should we have articles about dying games on wikipedia? --86.84.19.107 10:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hyperiums is not a dying game. Because of the game play of Hyperiums there will points in time where there are a lot of players and others where there will be less players (like at the moment). In a month or two SC12 will spawn (those of you who play the game will know what I am talking about) and many players who left the game will come back (as this event will give them a better opportunity to restart). RajivShah 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Sure, I checked the pages referenced by this article, and these pages give much more information about this game than this wikipedia page actually does. I therefore believe that just referencing to these pages (to the Hyperiums Nexus page in particular), or removing this wiki article as a whole are both agreeable solutions. --86.84.19.107 7:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You need to realize that the original article has been stripped of all "original research" after the deletion debate has started. -- maji
  • General issue with gaming entries - I took some time browsing Wikipedia's library of video/computer game entries and a lot, if not all of them are in violation of WP:NOR, especially the spoilers and plot details as well as game character analysis in parts or as a whole. See for instance Irenicus, an article based 100% on original research and conjecture by the author - if any of this information is found somewhere on the 'net or in printed form (game reviews do not go into such detail), it comes from non-notable sources like fanpages or inofficial walkthroughs. What exactly makes top-selling games more equal than apparently less successful ones?
    • Comment Actually, that particular article on Irenicus is indeed pretty awful. But there is an explanation for why a character like Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(character), for example, warrants his own article. It's because the characters of highly well-known video games are notable in and of themselves, independent of their games. Check out the 48 references on that article. Exactly where to draw the line is certainly a controversial issue, but top-selling games are more equal than others on wikipedia, because it is easier for them to satisfy the WP:V requirements. JoshWook 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me point out that the keep voters have mostly just gushed about their favorite game, except for Rajiv. Still, the one source Rajiv found falls short of WP:SOFTWARE which is a pretty sensible standard for inclusion. Mangojuicetalk 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling physics

[edit]

Delete. Seems like original research to me - application of cartoon physics (which is at least talked about elsewhere) to professional wrestling. bd2412 T 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like the contents of an email forward or chat room humor. Kafziel 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These rules should stay unwritten. --Sbluen 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That you don't think that the corpus of human knowledge should include a topic does not make that topic unsuitable for Wikipedia. If we had that as a reason for deletion, which we do not (per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy), many articles would end up being deleted, because for many areas of human knowledge there is always someone who wishes to suppress all writing about it. Uncle G 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no WP:RS, possible WP:OR. --Kinu t/c 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Peephole 01:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to the nomination, wrestling physics are also talked about elsewhere, as a little research would have shown. I encourage all of the above editors to do the research rather than to merely look at an article and think that it might be original research without making any attempt whatsoever to check that. It wasn't hard to find at least two sources discussing wrestling physics (in far more detail than this article does — indicating that this article can be significantly expanded) and I have no doubt (given that I didn't even get to the end of the first page of Google Web search results) that there are more to be found. The article needs significant improvement and cited sources. But deletion is not the way to do that. Ordinary editing is. There is the source material available to work from. Keep Uncle G 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dug into those Google results and found 65 actual pages returned (excluding the Wikipedia article), many of which used the phrase in the context of sentences like "nugget casino University of phoenix Rpg Musician Sony Bahamas Butterfly Wrestling Physics Columbia house Internet casino gambling File replication Power"[58]; "free wife slut story strike committee If teenage girl + lard Those amateur wrestling physics That amateur nude woman ? broad For adult cartoon joke wind" [59]; and "street map electronic hearimg protection horny house wivs drug infoemation topamax free picture enema professional wrestling physics bikini cameron diaz" [60]. The ONE page that I found that is actually about the kind of wrestling physics discussed in the article is A Primer in Wrestling Physics, which is quite clearly a joke article making assertions to the effect that the wrestler bounced off the ropes is propelled back to the hurler by the combined gravity of their massive bodies, centered in their noses, and that "10 head shots into the turnbuckle achieves a sort of harmonic vibration around the brain causing extreme disorientation". Yeah, it's funny, but that, along with a few blogs or forum posts that refer back to it, is just not a basis for an encyclopedia article. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How did you manage to find only one page when the article itself links to two? ☺ If it is a concern that the source that you found is written tongue-in-cheek, then the same concern applies to the self-styled Funny Page on the laws of cartoon physics that is linked to from cartoon physics. Also note that there are other articles about physics and wrestling that aren't turned up just by looking for "wrestling physics". There are also several not tongue-in-cheek discussions of the laws of physics as they apply to steer wrestling, such as this one. Uncle G 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to throw my 2 cents in, I looked at those external links earlier and I didn't think either of them could be considered a reliable source. Kafziel 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meh, another blog. And "steer wrestling physics" has nothing to do with the content of this article. Maybe this stuff could be merged into professional wrestling, but there is no authoritative source supplying a body of these made-up rules. bd2412 T 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Nick Mks 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Global Awareness & Liberation

[edit]

Inaccurately tagged as G1 originally, it still lacks any sources or further edits months later. Bringing it here in case I'm wrong about its notability... -- nae'blis 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all lists.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Actors (and three other lists)

[edit]

this is somewhat of a “test” case. I am providing a couple of representative samples of this type of article. I originally tagged List of British Actors with a {{prod}}, with the notice, "unnecessary and redundant list; there is already Category:British actors that serves the purpose this list would provide. No article "British actors" (or similar) for this list to support." Since posting that template, I discovered these other articles (see Category: Lists of actors by nationality). From my review (checking talk pages, but not the entire edit history), it does not appear that any discussion has been conducted regarding whether or not these lists are encyclopedic. I believe that all of these articles are redundant as that is what categories are for. Furthermore, some lists provide an ostensible criteria for inclusion, but others do not. I suggest reviewing these representative samples for AfD review. If they are deleted, I’ll nominate the balance. If they are not, I’ll leave well enough alone. In this nomination, I also include:

This group represents various varieties of these articles and various different parts of the world, but any of the other articles at Category: Lists of actors by nationality could be discussed here as well, either to support or refute deletion. Please do not take into consideration the “empty” nature of the List of British Actors. I’ve added a few names to the list just so it can be considered on its merits than its being incomplete. I’d rather have a consensus on this before the original editor spends a lot of time adding names only to have it deleted. Agent 86 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lists don't seem to have any explanatory text that make them useful in a manner not filled by the categories. If all a list does is list similar, existing article alphabetically, there isn't much need for them, as that's exactly what categories do. Especially in this case, where almost all the names have articles (in cases where many links don't, it can be helpful since those can't be in categories). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you don't really need lists and categories covering the same things, one or the other is enough --RMHED 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only those lists which have been superseded by their own categories. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lists, keep categories. - LA @ 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia could use a lot of cleanup in looking for redundant list/category pairs. Perhaps we could make a project out of the task? --Thorne N. Melcher 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was afraid someone would say that! I think I volunteered myself when I posted this nomination for deletion. If it succeeds, I fully intend to complete the nomination for the remaining articles in the category and follow through with whatever clean-up is necessary in that regard. I also have a similar potential project that I'm keeping quiet for the moment, only because it'll be a lot of work and I don't have the time right now. ;-) Agent 86
  • Delete per nom --Peephole 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamSmithee 07:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only where categories exist as per Pegship. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depending on the results of this AfD, I'm willing to create categories for those lists that might not have a corresponding category, then put the listed actors into the correct categories. That way we won't have half in categories and half in lists. Agent 86 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Both deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dampervan, Toybota

[edit]

Yet more Top Gear cruft, the Dampervan and Toybota only ever featured on one episode of the show. Nevertheless, they are long articles and appear to have many incoming links, so I'm hesistant to simply prod or speedy them. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they are fan cruft. Please note Wikipedia:Fancruft. --293.xx.xxx.xx 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a Wikipedia enthusiast or anything by any means, but if you have episode-by-episode summaries of various TV shows, such as South Park, I don't see how this can be seen as excessive. Perhaps if the TG community was up for it, episode summaries could be done in the fashion of those other TV shows, and relative and well-done information, such as these two articles, could be put in those episode summaries.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Midwestern cities by size

[edit]

This is a list of all the muncipalities in the Midwest United States with more than 10,000 inhabitants (858 of them). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a census. (There are not corresponding lists for other regions.) —Centrx→talk • 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It could use some citation, but it is an article that many might find useful. Wikipedia is not a census, but this focuses more around the ranking than the population totals, and I would hardly describe this as being part of an "indiscriminate collection of information." Perhaps the basement population of 10,000 is a little small, though. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thorne N. Melcher, and to respond to the floor of 10,000, perhaps Top 500 would be a better qualification. That way it wouldn't fluctuate so much. SliceNYC 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article's title does not specify the country it discusses — all countries have a Midwest. If the article is kept, please move it to a more appropriate title. -- Alias Flood 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Midwest automatically redirects to the Midwestern United States, with a note on top to also look at Brazil and Australia's midwestern regions. It's generally thought of as a US thing. SliceNYC 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that if this list belongs on Wikipedia, it would be acceptable to have thousands of similar lists: "List of Northeastern cities by size", "List of northeastern German cities by size", "List of Illinois cities by size". We don't even have "List of American cities by size", though there is "List of U.S. cities with Asian American majority populations". —Centrx→talk • 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Midwest is such an arbitrary region. I could maybe see a list like this per state or country, though. Kirjtc2 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Midwestern United States does a good job of explaining how the term Midwest has been used historically, geographically and in the census. It doesn't seem arbitrary. SliceNYC 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Mosaic Art

[edit]

Looks like self promotion. Although not linked, the article seems to be about this shop which runs courses in Oakland, CA and doesn't appear particularly notable. The article was linked to Mosaic with an address for the shop. I'm open to being persuaded that the place is infact notable, but otherwise delete. -- Solipsist 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hello Bayarts. As the article's original author, if you could update the article with several references from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:V) that would illustrate the importance of this subject, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, the article is unsourced and will probably be deleted. Thanks for your time. --Satori Son 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarium Manager

[edit]

No reliable sources seem to cover the game, fails WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Website's Alexa ranking is 48,763 and the site 85,500 google hits. Peephole 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Barbie's Life For Me

[edit]

Slef-published book "released in July of 2006" through vanity press lulu.com. Article author is apparently the book author. Zero hits on Google. Eminently non-notable. Fan-1967 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Martin

[edit]

Non-notable lower house candidate.

As best I can make out, Luke Martin started a vanity page on 6 May, 2006 with a lowercase "m" [62]. Then on 28 July asked Essjay to change his username from Lukewmartin to Kataposmanson [63]. Essjay obliged and on the next day recreated the current Luke Martin page.

Catchpole believes that the fact that Martin is a current candidate makes him sufficiently notable. I disagree. If he were party spokesperson on some issue at the state level then maybe that would increase his notability but I don't think we can go giving pages to every candidate of every election. Nick 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was convert to anti-matter. —freak(talk) 23:40, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Quantic_space-time

[edit]

Vague garbled miss-mash; zero google hits William M. Connolley 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the same user who just posted to User_talk:JoanneB: "i imagine you have an all american, all physics background and a kin pleasure in censoring other cultures/sciences from your anglopocentirc pov." Crabapplecove 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to De-loused in the Comatorium. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roulette Dares (The Haunt Of)

[edit]

Not notable enough to require it's own page, any addtional info can be put in the De-loused in the comatorium article Zopwx2 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is merged, it should cite the downloadable storybook that accompanies the album, which provides indepth explanations about what happens in Cerpin Taxt's "dreamworld." But yes, it does look like original research, and thanks for the agreement. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged into De-loused in the Comatorium.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son et Lumiere (song)

[edit]

Not notable enough to require it's own page, any addtional info can be put in the De-loused in the comatorium article Zopwx2 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'Speedy delete. Not so much "notability not asserted" as "lack of notability strongly affirmed". Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillaz-Unofficial

[edit]

nn-web community, can't see how this is at all notable--Frip1000 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC Concepción

[edit]

The daughter of someone notable, but not notable in her own right. Any publicity she may have achieved is due to her mother and not her own accomplishments. Therefore, she is not important enough to warrant a page. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to unanimous (-1) consensus of all actual Wikipedians. — Philwelch t 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer: Combat Evolved

[edit]
Also, the history and background is excessive. It is also done on original research, I believe. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 02:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have offended anyone by placing the "possible single use account" tag after their posts. I did not know that it would cause so much consternation. Please take my apologies in this matter. And, even though I mention that I am in 7th grade, it is completely irrelevant to this AfD discussion. If needed to come up with an appropriate retort, I may say that I am already attending college as a biology major, so I would think that if the comment that one is in 7th grade enters this conversation, it really simply supports me. Enough with that. I hope no one took offense at what I just put down.
Cheers,
RelentlessRouge 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on vacation, so I may not be actively participating in this AfD discussion before it is closed. Thank you for your time and effort in contributing to this discussion.
Cheers,
RelentlessRouge 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jarlaxle, this is a mod that is non-notable. It is as if I wrote about my own Xbox Live clan about Wikipedia. Who cares about my clan? (except for myself and my 7 other members, lol) It's not notable. Let's discuss this! Cheers, RelentlessRouge 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a member of the FLCE development team, and I would just like to clear up a few misconceptions. Firstly, this page was not created or maintained by us. It was made by a particularly devoted fan, hence the lack of a lot of formal information. We are currently giving it a major overhaul to bring it up to the wikipedia quality control standards. Second, this is a mod for Microsoft Freelancer, not halo. And despite the fact that we are still in alpha stage, and have yet to make a public release, we currently have over 850 members, which makes us one of the largest freelancer mods in existence, and defianately not non-notable within that community. Our mod has also been featured in an article on www.4players.de, which according to this classifies it as notable. The relevant article can be found here --Nightrogue 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has any recommendations on how to improve the quality of the wikipedia article in order to meet the required standards, I am all ears. I must confess my experience with wikis is limited.--Nightrogue 07:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nightrogue. I believe that the issue here is not quality control. The issue in question here is that it is an advertisement. Although the Wikipedia community appreciates the time that one of your fans took to place this online, there are certain guidelines on Wikipedia that regard what articles are acceptable - What Wikipedia is Not. In this case, the subdivision Wikipedia: Notability (companies + corporations) is also applicable. The followed is directly from Wikipedia:Notability - "Criteria for products and services
A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
This criterion excludes:
Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. 1
Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 7
The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization."
Cheers, RelentlessRouge 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article, and tell me if you can find anything "wrong" in the FLCE article that isnt mirrored in that one. --Nightrogue 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nightrogue! Cheers! In answer to the aforementioned article, I currently find little at fault. It does not say anything about how to play the game. Halo is a well-established product on Bungie Studios, and millions play it. No offense is intended, but I believe that FL:CE will never reach that popularity. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article, and tell me if you can find anything "wrong" in the FLCE article that isnt mirrored in that one. And as for the article saying who controls what faction, no it doesnt. The closest it comes to that is saying that they are player controlled, and giving some basic information about them. And saying it is like a game guide is even worse. Are there any ingame statistics? Any trade routes, combat guides, ship prices? There isnt any useful information whatsoever about how to play the game, apart from incredibly general statements that could apply to most any multiplayer game with a team component, and the basic rules of the game. Look up the article on Chess. Wow, thats a lot of information on rules, tactics and techniques. I dont see anybody objecting. Ah, but chess is an ancient and respected game, and FLCE is not. Ok then, look at this. You can see some striking parallels between this article and the FLCE one, albeit that the FLCE one contains LESS gameplay information. This article is guilty of nothing that isnt mirrored by hundreds of other legitimate articles on Wikipedia. That said, I recognize that there are still some improvements required to bring it up to scratch, and they will be made, as soon as it's safety is assured.--Nightrogue 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about mods are an accepted part of Wikipedia just look in the category Computer game mods. This article does require significant cleanup and work but this poject is noteworthy and merits inclusion here.

Wikipedia standards are meant to be applied universally and follow established and accepted policy precedent. As such I once again refer to category Computer game mods in defense of not deleting this article. If you are to have credibility in your arguement you would have to go and slap a deletion nomination on most of the articles in that category. The fact that has not happened (either by you or another) is further proof that your claims of the standard you wish to apply here to this article are not in fact applicable in that manner.

Given that this project has been featured by international press in a manner which no other Freelancer Modification has (as mentioned by Nightrouge) and which few mods of any game ever are. This is further evidence that not only does this article merit existence by virtue of accepted standards of articles of this subject manner with regards to being noteworthy, but that it exceeds them.

I do agree that this article should be deleted if it is not brought up to the standards all Wikipedia articles must meet (and the most recent edit by Nightrouge does not in my view accomplish that) specifically with regards to WP:OR. If that does not occur then it should be removed, as the only reason that has been outlined here in favor of deletion that actually is in line with Wikipedia policy is the arguement which can be made that this article serves more as an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. That arguement specifically pertains to WP:OR. If this is rectified I really see no policy reason why this article should be removed.

Even if operating under the assumption that other policy standards apply with regards to the eveluation of the noteworhty level of this article, I would refer to when the discussion about the propossed deletion of Eon8 was going on. Due consideration was at least given in that the timer had not yet counted down. As such, judgement on whether that article was indeed noteworthy or not was reserved until the project timer concluded. This allowed for a more considered opinion to be formed as to how noteworthy it was. Since this is a project that is also still in development, I would think that the same logic and courtesy would be sensibly applied here. --Sully 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WP:CORP fully applies, because Freelancer: Combat Evolved is a product. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to sound like a broken record so I will simply refer you to actually read Wikipedia: Notability (companies + corporations). You will see that is very clearly targeted and explained. FL:CE is not a comercial product nor is it a company nor is it a corporation. It really is as simple as that in that it does not apply. If you take the time to read the policy carefully and examine how it has been applied in the past here on Wikipedia you will see what I am talking about. --Sully 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs) [reply]
Hello, Sully! Ok - FL:CE is a product. I will reread WP:CORP soon to see if commercial matters or not. Anyway, parts of this article are like a game guide, telling what players must do or anything. It's also a vanity page, telling who controls what faction or everything. I sympathize with you, in that I've created or heavily contributed to articles, just do have an admin delete them. However, there are guidelines that must be respected.
Cheers,
RelentlessRouge 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article, and tell me if you can find anything "wrong" in the FLCE article that isnt mirrored in that one. And as for the article saying who controls what faction, no it doesnt. The closest it comes to that is saying that they are player controlled, and giving some basic information about them. And saying it is like a game guide is even worse. Are there any ingame statistics? Any trade routes, combat guides, ship prices? There isnt any useful information whatsoever about how to play the game, apart from incredibly general statements that could apply to most any multiplayer game with a team component, and the basic rules of the game. Look up the article on Chess. Wow, thats a lot of information on rules, tactics and techniques. I dont see anybody objecting. Ah, but chess is an ancient and respected game, and FLCE is not. Ok then, look at this. You can see some striking parallels between this article and the FLCE one, albeit that the FLCE one contains LESS gameplay information. This article is guilty of nothing that isnt mirrored by hundreds of other legitimate articles on Wikipedia. That said, I recognize that there are still some improvements required to bring it up to scratch, and they will be made, as soon as it's safety is assured.--Nightrogue 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Relentless. You certainly are living up to your name. Look i can appreciate your enthusiasm here but admins have seen FL:CE's page before (because we had a problem with vandalism) and have never flagged this. I happen to be the leader of the FL:CE Development team and can tell you it is not a product, it is a project. There is a big difference in that terminology. Beside that difference in semantics the simple, VERY simple fact is it applies and I quote "This page gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if a company, corporation or other economic entity should have an article on Wikipedia." The details on criteria for products and services WITH REGARDS TO A "company, corporation or other economic entity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs)
Look I understand and appreciate your intrest in working on wikipedia. But right now and especially with this rather insulting edit potting possible single purpose account in front of the sigs of this articles supporters and the fact that you created this whole discussion without even once posting on Freelancer: Combat Evolved discussion page really seems to me that you are the one with a single purpose here. I know you have attempted to become an admin here before and have overwhelmingly been voted down. This doesn't say anything about your character or if you are a good person as i am sure that you are. However, you really need to stop acting as if you are an admin and putting those "Possible single purpose account" tags in front of our names is really insulting and infuriating and I have now removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs)
Please don't take this as a flame or anything like that but I also understand from looking at your user page that you are in the seventh grade and so that is why I have repeated myself on the issue of Wikipedia: Notability (companies + corporations) since the specific concept of particular policy may not be easy for you to grasp. Thus I will again implore you to please reread that policy as it is very clearly written. I will not however repeat myself on this point again. You really need to learn that in a debate you are suppossed to come up with points and counterpoints, not simply keep insisting the same arguement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs)
Frankly I think you have made your views on this article very clear as have I. I know I will not be posting anything else here in this discussion until after the article in question has been cleaned up which I hope to contibute in doing so later. I honestly have better things to do with my time than to sit here and be insulted by a frustrated seventh grader. Again, I am sure in your heart your intentions ar honorable, and it is understandable that you may not have yet developed certain social graces, but that is no excuse for this kind of behaviour towards other people. Respect, it goes a long way when having a discussion. --Sully 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to remove the single purpose account tags yourself - it's considered vandalism. If you're not a single purpose account, bring it up with an admin. As for the game, it is not notable. It has not been the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage (HBO doesn't count), it is not well-known, and it is not widely played. Comparing the game to Halo itself or to other games does not work because this is a mod and not a stand-alone game. Only the most noteworthy mods are in the Computer game mods category. The ones that aren't probably shouldn't be there, but that's not a discussion for this AfD - the existence of one article is not a reason to keep another. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dload, Sully, however you would like to be called. I "honestly" have far better things to do than to be a "frustrated seventh grader", like doing organic chemistry. It is possible I "have [not] yet developed certain social graces". My rather failed RfA when I had been editing Wikipedia for 2 months, and I admit I should not have started it. If you intention was to infuriate me, derogatively offend me, or another purpose which I can not fathom, it did not work. Anyway, I fail to see how it effects this argument. Anyone can add the "single-purpose user" tag. If you feel offended, then fine. My intention was to alert other contributors to this discussion about what I believe are your and Nightrogue's discussions. And, thanks for informing me that I'm living up to my username. I'm proud I chose it when I created an account.

If you have another other comments to speak to me personally about, you can simply write them on User talk: RelentlessRouge.

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason why you deleted my post? This is supposed to be a reasonable discussion, which CANNOT BE HAD if you pick and choose which side of the discussion gets to speak. The post I made had no obscenities, or insults. How do you justify deleting it? As for sockpuppet votes, I myself have only used the one account this whole time. --Nightrogue 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, all these one-purpose accounts mysteriously popping up actually reduces the stength of the keep discussion, since it shows that the only people defending this article are its editors, wheras the people seeking deletion are the general, diversified contributors. — Deckiller 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but we are working by wikipedia's own rules. We have not misconducted ourselves in any manner that I am aware of. In a truly intellectual discussion, such as the one we are supposed to be having, what people say is more important than who says it. --Nightrogue 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, the person this user is refering to is not me — I did not delete a post) — Deckiller 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, the person this user is refering to is not me — I did not delete a post either) RelentlessRouge 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, there were some arguments moved around for the sake of organization, but nothing appears to have been deleted. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked for my post and couldnt see it, so I thought it had been deleted. Sorry about that.--Nightrogue 06:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of High Charity

[edit]

Vanity page, inconsequential aspect of Halo to most people RelentlessRouge 21:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily closed and moved to WP:CFD. . alphaChimp laudare 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wekepedians

[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the correct route for this, but it appears to be a response to an edit war the user who created this category is involved in. Nuttah68 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Become

[edit]

This company is not particularly important in the Price comparison sector. I have listed it on the List of price comparison services page, but unless there is some more useful information published, this page should be deleted. Blowski 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 10 Connector (Reed City, Michigan)

[edit]

This is an "unofficial" designation, shown only on one sign. Note the TO plate, which would not exist if it was actually a US 10 Connector. It does not appear in the MDOT Control Section/Physical Reference Atlas. --SPUI (T - C) 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Revolution (band)

[edit]

The band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria --RMHED 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "notoriaty amongst the local bar scene" and "released a self-produced album" are not assertions of notability, so I reckon it's a speedy candidate. Also see the creator's message on the talk page: I'm gonna be adding more to this, enough to remove the "stub" tag, but its about 3:30am now, and I've got to get to bed sometime... Any tips or critiques are gladly appreciated. -Davepetr 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Guess what, he never did. Punkmorten 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Targetter (Lock On) 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camberley Kart Club

[edit]

non-notable go-kart club, does not assert notability. Crabapplecove 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crown & Corona Fan Club Finland

[edit]

another non-notable automotive "fan club". Does not assert notability. Crabapplecove 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Realtime (disambiguation).  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time

[edit]

Better article on same subject at Real-time computing

  • Strong Keep. There's no reason Wiki can't contain a discussion of the nature of things that are "real time" aside from the specific computer science question of "realtime systems". And Lubaf, you were too quick to pull the trigger, given that this discussion has only been extant for 3 days now. Atlant 13:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beef metal

[edit]

Fake subgenre of metal (quote : Bands of beef metal are well known but the term itself is generally unheard of, even as an undergroud subgenre of metal) Very few relevant ghits, no reputable sources. Punkmorten 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it merits a page, I have seen people on underground metal sites discussing such a sub-genre, saying that bands like Sabaton are just too different to most power metal to be named as such, this new sub-genre is at present known as beef metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubertron (talk • contribs) 2 August 2006 Beef Metal is not a 'fake' subgenre of metal. It has recently become a recognised term among fans of certain bands mentioned in the article. You may find the term on a number of music websites and forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.250.145 (talk • contribs) 2 August 2006

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girls On The Move (GOTM)

[edit]

non-notable Australian motorcycle club. Crabapplecove 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Car Club of Great Britain

[edit]

Carcruft. Another non-notable car club article that does not assert notability of its subject. Crabapplecove 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibyss

[edit]

Protologism with zero Google hits (as per User:Matticus78). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient Jam

[edit]

Not only does this article not tell me why the subject is notable, it doesn't even really tell me what the subject even is. Crabapplecove 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pectoral

[edit]

Dictdef. Transwiki, anyone? Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was listed in wrong place. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deuterium/Bad edits

[edit]

Attack page PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED DISCUSSION TO Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Deuterium/Bad_edits

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGL Carbon

[edit]

Nn. fails to meet WP:CORP --Wisden17 22:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commet I would still suggest a delete vote, and even with your new information the article fails to meet WP:CORP, and I fail to see existence on yahoo finance a compelling enough reason to keep. --Wisden17 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that the specifications on WP:CORP are guidelines and not rules, meaning that a company that can be deemed significantly notable by other means still deserves to remain in the encyclopedia. Also, considering "SGL Carbon" is a unique name, I'm sure there are plenty of sources in the 617,000 hits that could be used to justify its existence even within the guidelines of WP:CORP. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:CORP is a guideline not a policy (as opposed to rules) and I do not treat the guidelines as 'gospel', often voting to keep pages which may not fall into those guidelines but still have other forms of notability. --Wisden17 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Skimming through the search results (further liminted to be just English language pages, so onyl 129K) reveals that they are a global company, got hit with anti-trust cases in the U.S., European Union and Canada in recent years, and are a significant company for the carbon industry. That industry doesn't get a lot of general press coverage (about the only industrial industry that does is the auto industry), but they seem to mee the WP:CORP guideline for press coverage. They are also included in at least one stock index, but I didn't take the time to evaluate if that index meets the WP:CORP guideline as I felt the company should be kept on other standards. GRBerry 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added this page in support of the portion on the History of graphite (for Nuclear Graphite, SGL crabon is the child company of several companies that were incolved in the development of materials and the field. I would like to develop this additionally to show the history of this company and how it relates to the various graded of graphite used in nuclear reactors in the past. Mark 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. This is not an article, its one sentence with a stub tag. Since listed, nothing has been done to improve with quality, notability, and verification, yet still fails CORP. And adding a few section headers in 2 days isnt an improvement. SynergeticMaggot 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Meets WP:CORP, part of the German MDAX index. Mark 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have done some furhter development as well. Mark 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to support this, as the yahoo entry says that it is not listed in any indicies. --Wisden17 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try [[64]], not sure how static it is. Mark 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this link I would say article now meets WP:CORP, hence I change my opinion to that of Keeping the article. --Wisden17 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ageo: if you want to rewrite, you'll have to do it from scratch, not from a copyvio version. Mangojuicetalk 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 U.S. thoroughbred champions of the 20th Century

[edit]

Prodded, article was saved from being a 'bare list' (and therefore arguably copyright violation of their intellectual property) by copying most of the parent magazine article into this entry. Several other "Top XX" lists were deleted recently as non-notable and probable copyright violations. -- nae'blis 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried searching Blood horse, bit can't find it. --Ageo020 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney Beekeepers' Association

[edit]

Delete - notability not established. --Mais oui! 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayCoed

[edit]

Article about a website, which does not meet WP:WEB, additionally it would seem that the major editor to the article (User:Kbmiked) is related to the site (all edits are only to this article and adding links to this article, claims copyright to the site logo) - the article is being used purely for promotional purposes. Thanks/wangi 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Movies Syncs

[edit]

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is mostly external links, and very POV, things like "things that are popular" and "things you haven't heard of". -Royalguard11Talk 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to Kentucky Farm Bureau. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky farm bureau

[edit]

Article appears completely redundent with Kentucky Farm Bureau and appears to likely be the result of a copy & paste page move. Dekkanar 23:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cat

[edit]

Not notable gamedesigner. It is a biography page that doesn't even list the person's real name. Fails WP:BIO. Peephole 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided (comment). Tough call for me, but all casting their opinions on this vote should read the article's talk page. The company he founded produced one notable game, Furcadia, which might warrant the inclusion of an article about the company, but it's tough stretching that justification to the designer himself.
  • Keep. The article really could use some improving, yep (too tired to do anything right now, I'll try tomorrow). However, check out the list of stuff the guy has worked on in MobyGames or this thing, and you see that he's not exactly a random coder. One of the memorable names from Origin Systems and clearly known for his other accomplishments, I think... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Some improving? The article doesn't even include his real name! Those sources you provided aren't very reliable sources. And I'm sure you can make such a list for every game developer who has been in the game industry for five or ten years.--Peephole 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is his real name, and try well over 20 years. -kotra 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting viewpoint, but not more than that. You could find as many editors claiming the exact opposite, so I fail to see the relevance. Please go bug someone else. --Lomedae 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (article's primary author) For starters, Dr. Cat is his real name, albeit not his birth name. I believe he has had it legally changed. Anyway, he is notable for being half of the then two-person team Dragon's Eye Productions that created two notable games, Furcadia and DragonSpires. His contributions are already evident in the online game industry for being one of the pioneers of the MMOSG genre. His notability is likely to continue and increase with the popularity of his contributions. Google test: His in-game Furcadia pseudonym "Felorin" passes the Google test at 10,000 results, in addition to however many results are attributed to him from searching Dr. Cat. Compare this with video game developers Jukka Tapanimäki (200 results) and Chuck Bueche (800 results), who have undisputed articles. Autobiography: the article wasn't written by him or anyone closely involved with him. As the article's primary author, I don't know him personally, and my only relation to him was a single brief conversation with him in-game several months ago. Bottom line: please do not judge his notability simply because the article is currently in a stub state and because his name is eccentric. -kotra 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:AFD those other articles if you want to. But this AFD should discuss this page, not those other articles. There haven't been any reliable sources (WP:RS) provided about this man's notability. There has been no other arguments provided other than he is a game designer of many and a couple popular games. Which doesn't make one notable. 10,000 google hits isn't close to being plenty by the way. --Peephole 00:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing the other articles I mentioned. If anybody should, it's you, since you are disputing this one. I was making the point that those articles, despite returning a much fewer results with the Google test, have not been disputed once in their year and two-year histories. And personally, I do not think they should be. As for the results being not "plenty", try searching a random sample of Category:Game programmers. This course of action would also be appropriate for finding what the predominant opinion seems to be regarding the verifiability of sources like MobyGames. You say that creating a couple popular games and contributing to many other (also popular) games isn't enough to be notable. I disagree. -kotra 01:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

Speedy keep

Symbolic Sound Corporation

[edit]

Doesn't fit with WP:N Wafulz 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I found this article just today and saw that its importance was being questioned. Today I began adding historical facts and references to articles and books related to this topic.

I hope I have an opportunity to finish this editing.

Seth Laphage 23:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Perkins

[edit]

This article is a local politican with no apparent claim to notability that would satisfy WP:BIO or the proposed candidates and elections criteria. The party switch information is the most likely basis for a claim of notability, but a quick glance at the first results for "'Tim Perkins' quit" on Google yielded no related results. The op-ed linked in the article itself appears to be a statement by Perkins himself. Erechtheus 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The op-ed article is from the "Manchester Evening News," and one citation by a local news network is hardly enough to considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, even beyond the fact that it appears to be one of his own op-ed works. --Thorne N. Melcher 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only of local interest; a search of newspaper databases finds two refs, both from the Manchester Evening News.--Runcorn 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tim Perkins is my dad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.80.68 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, due to bad faith nom. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuicideGirls

[edit]

This article is non-notable website. --K4zem 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. You have got to be kidding. SuicideGirls is enormously popular website, an important cultural phenomenon, and has been involved in a number of very public controversies. Furthermore, this page has been up for a previous AfD less than 6 months ago, with strong consensus to Keep. If anything, the notability of SG has only increased since the time of the last AfD. (It's poorly thought-out nominations like this that really call for a rule establishing a moritorium of at least one year on future AfDs once an AfD has been rejected by strong consensus.) Iamcuriousblue 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep/wangi 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life_Crystals

[edit]

Not notable (item within a computer game) and indiscriminate info. Ladlergo 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it was just created as a link from there... Ladlergo 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not useless, the page just wasn't filled in yet. Very sorry for the delay.

I'm not saying that it's useless. I'm saying that it doesn't meet the criteria of notability, and that WP is not a game guide. Ladlergo 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for a more suitable home are welcome. Wikibooks kicked previous Lineage 2 pages off to StrategyWiki, which has been offline 16+ hours a day quite consistently for the last month. More then happy to move this page elsewhere ASAP. SirDuncan 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZetaCorp

[edit]

Deprodded by author User:Zeta204, which just so happens to be the handle of the owner of this fictional company... hmm. Blatant vanispamcruftisement that asserts its own lack of notability. Morgan Wick 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above --Lomedae 00:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Daly

[edit]

This local politician fails WP:BIO and the candidates and elections proposal. His successor in office has an article because he held statewide office. Most of the mayors of Anaheim have no article because they are not notable. Erechtheus 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draven Cage

[edit]

Non-notable wrestler from a non-notable wrestling organisation. Although the page is expansive it does not merit an article in the first place. --- Lid 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How can someone become notable, if any information about them is deleted? This then prohibits people learning/finding out about that person or the promotion he works for (which is what I understood Wikipedia is all about, learning and finding out information). On a side note, the promotion is listed in the Wikipedia article about the British Wrestling Scene. It would seem unfair to delete one UK wrestlers article, while leaving another on the site. There are many other pages for wrestlers that are stubs, containing nothing of any detail about that person, yet they are allowed to remain, even though they have little to no value to them. I'd have the article left as it is. HDC7777
  • Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not THE source of knowledge. It doesn't meet notability requirements or WP:BIO. --- Lid 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is obtained through coverage in the general media, not through coverage in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias cover things that are already notable. GRBerry 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many US wrestlers are featured on the site, yet have little to no general media coverage? I can understand non-UK residents not knowing/caring about UK wrestlers or promotions, but not to the point of deleting this article, while allowing articles on US wrestlers that feature very little or no information. Some of them have the name of the person and that they are wrestlers, and that is all. How can that be more viable than this entry, when it tells the person next to nothing about them? There must be lots of articles about wrestlers (UK and non-UK) that are less worthy (either through content, notability or general coverage of the subject) than this article, yet they remain on the site with no problems or discussions in regards to them. Why is this article different to them? On a side note, surely the link to the LWL homepage can verify the accuracy of the details in that part of the article. The matches and subsequent results are all there, as is Draven Cage's LWL profile, moves and upcoming matches. To me, this is verification of authenticity in regards to that section. And I've added a link to an interview from Wrestling101 that has Red Lightning (another UK wrestler) discussing his early days, and he states in the interview details that verify the parts in the article about CSF, Colin McKay, the WILD promotion and that Draven helped train the students. I would assume that comes under independent sources for information.HDC7777
  • If these articles can remain on the site without deletion (or discussion of deletion), then this article should too. As they have little to no information about the person, yet they seem to be notable in the criteria of Wikipedia.

And that is just a few that I found in about ten minutes of searching. So I would assume that there are a lot more articles on pro-wrestlers that are like that. What makes those articles more worthy than this one?

  • I went through that list posted, and I knew most of the names. Most of the names you listed are people that use to work for WWF, WCW and/or ECW. People know them. Just because they have small articles, doesn't make them less notable. Draven isn't that notable or known, so it should be deleted. RobJ1981 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that they worked for mainstream organisations, but the articles for those wrestlers tell the reader very little if nothing about the wrestler featured. I can't understand what purpose those articles serve that this one doesn't. A mainstream wrestling fan would be hard pushed to recognise any of the wrestlers listed, especially in non-US countries. To be fair, RobJ1981, you run a website called Pro Wrestling Addicts, which, to me, means you would know more than the average person. So for YOU to say you know/recognise most of the names on there isn't a fair comparison, especially if you are not a follower of the whole UK independent wrestling scene. Not all UK wrestlers work for 1PW, and that seems to be (along with 3CW) the only UK wrestlers on the site. There are countless UK wrestlers who don't wrestle for these companies, but that doesn't mean that they are worthless.
  • As a side note to the above comment, I would assume, RobJ1981, that Draven Cage is now a little more notable, now that people would have read about him, checked the links, sources, etc. Some of the names listed above have no links or sources applied to the article about them, so I don't see why they have more merit than this one. Draven Cage may not be well known in the US, and the UK scene is hard to actually make a name due to lack of TV exposure (which TWC has done a good job of rectifying). But I dare say, if you asked the average UK fan about those named, they would have no clue who you were referring to. I understand (and indeed respect) your desire to retain the integrity of Wikipedia, but I fail to see how this will undermine that in the first place. It is obvious by the links provided that the article is based on facts from sources (the interview, the LWL homepage, etc) rather than just used for filler material. The article is information on a UK wrestler, that lets anyone who pops onto it know who he is and what he does. The links verify this, so that fullfils certain criteria. The only one that I can see standing is the notability one. And as I said, that is something that can be addressed in time. Especially as you, RobJ1981, know about him and can add him to your website as another wrestler from the UK.
  • Delete Non-notable; happy to consider any other wrestler articles brought here.--Runcorn 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that it was a five day discussion. Isn't the above comment too late to be considered? When will a decision be made? I think it should stay (obviously) as it adds to the information available about the WHOLE UK scene.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Terrace

[edit]

No substantive content above and beyond Terrace (building) other than many pictures of one guy's terrace. --Xrblsnggt 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes & Comics

[edit]

Article does not meet notability requirements per WP:WEB. It has also been written by the user RenaudMan, containing text describing the person who has written the information, violating WP:AUTO. Finally, the person being does not fit into the criteria for what is considered a notable person here on Wikipedia, as outlined by WP:BIO Kyra 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, with comments from both regular editors and single purpose accounts considered. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magee (journalist)

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.

NN journalist. Only 180 unique Google hits. [66], and some of those hits belong to an athlete who is unrelated to the journalist. This journalist has not received multiple independent reviews and awards for his work, fails WP:BIO. Dionyseus 00:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEP!!!

  • Keep Involvement in the move to online IT journalism is notable.
  • Keep. He is a pioneer of IT news. Chinesegary 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we deleted everyone Dionyseus didn't like there'd be no one left in Wikipedia apart from him. Magee was - and is - a driving force in IT journalism. Not just in the UK, but worldwide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.79.84 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. His work in IT journalism is legendary. User:Mekkie 13.27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His patronage of the Talisker Distillery is notable enough for an entry in WikiPedia
  • Keep. This suggestion by Dionyseus seems to be a spiteful move in a partisan vendetta he has started against The Inquirer see : http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33033 SuddenlyBunty 01:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The gentleman has an inspired and loyal worldwide fan base, inspired enough to fly around said world and meet up from time to time. And his reporting has often beat other sources by a wide enough margin to beat stock market analysts at their own game. --Sdmahaneysc 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable IT journalist - perhaps not in Dionyseus's world, but then not all of us have so insular a world view. Qmann 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The world would be a poorer place without journalists of Mike's integrity. US hacks should watch and learn. How do I nominate Dionyseus for being banned from Wikipedia for being a sad Dune fanatic? 81.187.79.84 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree spitefull attack by Dionyseus, due o hm being shown up as an asshat over the everywheregirl, pathetic be a man! :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.23.166 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP I have voted before, but am now registered. I have worked with Magee on and off for over ten years and I can think of no other hack more deserving of a wiki entry for his contributions to online journalism at both the Register and the Inquirer. I worked with him at the Reg and the Inq and against him as a PR for Intel and Cadence. He is a one off. At one of the UK's top PR agencies, his biog reads simply: 'Mike is a grizzled veteran with a fearsome reputation'. Doctor Spinola 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bwithh and badlydrawnjeff. To say that he is not important when a company as HUGE as VNU has this to say about The Inquirer: "The Inquirer has excellent reach into a high-value audience of knowledgeable and influential readers – a group that are notoriously hard to reach through mainstream publishing channels. Rounding out our UK online portfolio with The Inquirer gives us the reach we need to take full advantage of all the audience opportunities that exist within B2B and specialist technology publishing,” said Ruud Bakker, UK Managing Director, VNU Business Publications Ltd" is just ridiculous. And yes I am The Everywhere Girl, but this is not a personal issue. --Jennaluna 01:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Bad Faith Nomination FullSmash26 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Engineering Project with DS

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:VAIN, has had the {{significance}} since June 20, and google turns up nothing. -Bogsat 00:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Gay Movies

[edit]

Doesn't seem to have anything going on in regards to WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 347,398. Delete SubSeven 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if these claims are true, it shouldn't be hard to provide verifiable sources in the article. Right now, no such sources are provided, and claims like this are so much dust in the wind if they can't be verified. If such sources can be provided, I'd be willing to change my vote. -- H·G (words/works) 07:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be such a big opposition to the making of a page for the well known site for gay themed movies, About Gay Movies. Appearantly it is still a big taboo to write anything that is about a gay issue. Even in this day and age there is still a lot of homophobia. Especially in the USA. Unfortunatly this is inbedded in the culture of the USA. It is supposed to be the land of the free, but everytime it is proven not to be the case for gay people.
    • I do not want to have to deal with this kind of biggotry, therefore I have decided that the page should be deleted. As the creator of this page I should be able to do this. But unfortunatly this is not an option, therefore I would like to request one of the editors of Wikipedia do this for me. Discussion closed. Lordmarchmain 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worthless, but does not need its own article.--Runcorn 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_1&oldid=1081094223"