Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

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The result was Nomination withdrawn - the nomination was incomplete and after doing some work on the article Downunda decided not to continue with the AFD. Yomanganitalk 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Porterhouse Brewing Company

[edit]

Reason Downunda 05:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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





















































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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shot Doctor

[edit]

This article does not establish notability, and borders on nonsense. In any case, the subject of the article is fictional, a hoax, or spamvert. Richardcavell 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Grandmasterka 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchists

[edit]

Hopelessly vague list ("considered an anarchist by themselves or others"), mostly unsourced list of anyone who has ever, at any time, been considered to be an anarchist by any editor. Serves double duty as an attack page. Might be reasonable to replace this with "Notable people who have self-identified as anarchists," but I'm not sure that's really worth it. Nandesuka 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rock-Ola

[edit]

The result was keep because I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination and there are no delete votes.
--דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Was deprodded by the author. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society

[edit]

Delete. Although it may be old, this needs to be deleted per precedent. Organizations within universities are not notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. See VUWSA, Salient (Magazine), Otago University Debating Society for some examples. This is not only an old organisation, but a successfuol one 130.195.86.36 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Victoria University of Wellington. If it's a notable part of the uni, it belongs there, if not then delete. --Mnemeson 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"

  • Weak keep. It needs a substantial rework though. While Midnighttonight argues (perhaps validly) that the VUW society measures up better than Otago, the VUW article is much weaker.--Limegreen 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Limegreen makes a fair point. I do plan on expanding this, but this Afd was added as soon as the page was made. If it is not deleted, I will expand it, there is plenty more that can go on here 124.197.27.180 05:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; default to keep. It can (and should) of course be edited further: cleaned up, sourced, etc. Petros471 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish carpets

[edit]

Long how-to guide/advertisement written in the first person and admitting to lousy uncited sources. Opabinia regalis 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Richard Rodriguez --- Deville (Talk) 01:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browning of America

[edit]
Herm. apparently the phrase "the browning of the Church" has also been doing the rounds (though not at critical mass yet). glurk. Bwithh 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RND Automation & Engineering

[edit]

An article about a non-notable company written by its president. Prod tag was removed with a plea on the talk page. I admit I was not clear in the prod tag, as I did not link to WP:CORP and WP:NPOV for the author to check out. Nevertheless, the company needs to satisfy WP:CORP and be written up by a neutral party if it is to have an article. Therefore, delete. -IceCreamAntisocial 01:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Showalter

[edit]

Not notable and is very insular. sigmafactor 01:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geekstar clothing

[edit]

Failure of WP:CORP. I also nominate Geekstar to be deleted as well. --Nishkid64 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to be proper doesn't geekstar need it's own AFD or is it covered by this? --Charlesknight 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his article was written by the artist geekstar there are no copyright issues, and if you thought there was a copyright issue why have you not directly contacted the artist, instead of coming to your own conclusions? peaceGeekstar 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your website licensed under the GFDL? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awol (machinima)

[edit]

Unverifiable crystallballism. Little or no relevant non-wikipedia mirror Ghits [5]. Pascal.Tesson 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, this is going nowhere but the bitbucket. Guy 12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobophobia

[edit]

Admitted neologism, and silly to boot. Several references to blogs and forum posts. 54 google hits. Delete as WP:NEO. 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Homophobophobia is a legitimate issue, as can be verified below and therefore this topic has reason for receiving a voice. The primary objective of this article is to expose colloquial refferences made by the general public, not those in blogs or forums.
An example of homophobophobia is deleting this thoroughly thought out and thoroughly researched article without discussion or attempts to improve it. The author made a tenacious attempt to purge all traces of attacks, vanity, spam, and nonsense from this piece. If ones political or otherwise biased views cause this article to appear to be “utter nonsense,” one is encouraged to make the necessary changes to improve said piece in this regard.
Please feel free to edit for the purposes of improving non-biased accuracy, as well as removing bias itself. Current information as contained is not based on original research.
For those who have doubts as to the usefulness of this article and the definitions and disambiguation therein, may freely consult [6], in which you will discover an entire page of “philias.” If, therefore, the English language is capable of producing such a great many forms of sexual expression, love, and risk-taking, then one must equally acknowledge an equally numerous set of phobias, if not in greater quantity, regardless of their relation to sexuality, the evidence of which can be seen bellow.
One may also be referred to [7] for further guidance. You are advised to refrain from vandalizing this wikipedia article.
(homophobophobia is related, but not identical, as the definition suggests)
Changes have been made to comply with quality standards. Please note the purpose being to expose a possibly decade old word, or perhaps one coined shortly after the word "heterophobia", or before. Clearly more research can be done to correct this problem, and it will easily be done pending contributions by the many Wikipedia editors available.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Techron (talk • contribs) Reformatted for readability by bikeable (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: The MSNBC article mentions it, but as a made up word. One article mentions the word, but to link to this very new article... mmm... -- lucasbfr talk 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get 54 unique Google hits on homophobophobia. I have looked at the article references, and they contain a variety of different meanings (as the article indicates.) I think this word hasn't caught on sufficiently to have an established meaning. And when it does... it will belong over in the Wiktionary, not here. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a dictionary --Mnemeson 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I see no reasonable possibility of the expansion of this page past mere dicdef status. No objection to a transwiki to Wiktionary.
    Note: If this is deleted, please remember to clean up all the redirects and references to this which user:Techron has aggressively added to sex-related articles across Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to defend this entry on one level, as indeed the word seems to be having a hard time settling into one of two "obvious" meanings. On the other hand, Techron's criticism of the uncritical acceptance of other sexual pseudo-terminological entries is not unfounded. For instance, out of pure dumb chance I lit upon agonophilia. Here we see the wikipedia internet power dynamic at work, because the word would seem to have two somewhat conflicting definitions. And furthermore, most references to one of those meanings trace back to Wikipedia itself. Thus it appears that one of the reasons to delete this entry is to prevent it from establishing the word with a specific meaning. I say Delete, but not with any great conviction. Mangoe 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Madagascar (film), nothing to merge. If someone disagrees, the history is still there. - Bobet 14:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty the Zebra

[edit]

Non-notable Zebra. Not even a real Zebra. No need for anything other than a mention in Magascar.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 would have left the redirect but the title is plural and we already have a redirect at B-52 bomber (heaven alone knows how the creator managed to miss a target this big!) As the comments note, there is an existing article of substantially higher quality at B-52 Stratofortress and there is nothing new in this to merge. An open and shut case. Guy 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 bombers

[edit]
OK, the consensus seems to be re-direct so I was bold and did the redirect. Can someone close this AfD please? --Richard 07:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I just read the deletion guideline that says you're not supposed to redirect an article while it is in AfD. I reverted my bold edit. I think we are ready to close this debate, though. --Richard 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.L.-E

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not officially confirmed film. Only reference is a news story 1 sentence long and a blog citing the story --Coasttocoast 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 06:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmin

[edit]

Not Notable; start-up NGO, working to provide footballs to schools in Sierra Leone, and, as far as I can see, nothing else so far. Brianyoumans 02:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fezzik

[edit]

most of the material is unsourced and reads like marketing material. steve fezzik prefers to remain anonymous. Association of a real name with this virtual identity is conjecture and is unproven Pc360 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep There were good arguments in favor of deletion, however they did not seemed to be shared by many established users. If anyone desires I will expand on my reasoning. JoshuaZ 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane Zongo

[edit]

Non-notable dead perp. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. The only tragedy here is for P.O. Bryan Conroy and his family. We do not need articles about every stupid perp who gets killed. Giuliani Time 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to all. Notability is not about whether the subject of the article was a good or bad person. Nor is this a vote - the outcome will be decided on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. Thanks, Ben Aveling 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is my wikipedia nickname and automatically pops up when i sign off with the four twiddles. So I am not impersonating anyone. It is me User:Chifumbe or Muntuwandi 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) same thing.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deletrius per comments below and because it contains no credible claim to notability. Guy 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MuggleNet Interactive

[edit]

NN website. does this really need its own page? Desertsky85451 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, CSD A8, blatant copyright infringement. If you feel these men are notable, feel free to recreate as non-copyvio versions. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coen

[edit]

This article is about a person who does not merit an encyclopedia entry. -- P.B. Pilhet 03:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

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

The result was Speedy deleted by me. It is impossible for this article to survive AfD, and it borders on nonsense. - Richardcavell 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postsexyism

[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism invented last week on LiveJournal. Pretty much says it all. Opabinia regalis 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free at the dee

[edit]

Non-notable concert venue Akradecki 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm fairly new to Wikipedia please forgive the apparent rawness of the piece - I posted the article because this pop festival is quite a big thing in the North East Scotland music scene, and I'd appreciate it's retention.

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

The result was Speedily deleted under CSD G1 by Doc glasgow. MER-C 12:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert button

[edit]

Vanity page, does not satisfy WP:BIO-- Wildnox 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as Denette eloquently put it below. Guy 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga cure asthma

[edit]

Awkwardly-titled, semi-coherent, sourceless POV pseudoscience. What little actual information is in here is redundant with asthma and bronchitis. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yabbut

[edit]

Non-notable...toy. Google for "Yabbut" and "toy" brings up about 400 results, a lot of which aren't apparently about it. Crystallina 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetralibro

[edit]

I just deleted the page Roberto Scano per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Scano, and my guess is that this article should go much the same way. Deville (Talk) 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing WP:NOT. there's only 105 distinct Ghits here, so it's easy to sift. There's a lot of press releases, but no multiple non-trivial third-party articles about the concept; no awards, no evidence of genericization of the name, and so on. As the article is solely about Tetralibra, there's no way to be encyclopedic, or not be an ad. Since the only documentation are Tetralibra press releases, this raises the failure of [{WP:V]] as well. Tychocat 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. Seems like self-promo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Born To Be Wired

[edit]

Non-notable wrestling event, I am also nominating the following events: TJ Spyke 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the time I wrote the above, non of the entries I listed gave any indication of being pay-per-view events, though I see that you have now updated Anarchy Rulz to show this. Massacree on 34th Street still gives no indication of this however, so it may appear non-notable to those not steeped in ECW tradition. Dsreyn 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten around to it, I am updating the ECW PPV's in the order that they aired and Massacre was the second to last PPV they aired. TJ Spyke 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ECW is Extreme Championship Wrestling. Dsreyn 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lameass - A Jackass Parody

[edit]

Non notable web based video. As far as I can tell this is essentially a vanity entry. The Bethling 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Every parody or web-video doesn't need its own page. Also, 5000 views isn't that great (nor is that stat alone a good indication of worth)...youtube has dozens of steve irwin tributes slapped together that have gotten a 10-20K views in the past day. DMacks 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted - 15:36, 6 September 2006 Herostratus (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kangapoo" (hoax, rubbish)

Kangapoo

[edit]

Apparently fictional animal created as spoof. Kangapoo is used as a name for fertilizer made from kangaroo droppings and leaf litter --Bcsr4ever 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J J Softwares

[edit]

Obvious advertisement. Constantly references "our" mission/vision/etc. eaolson 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Jing's Piano Studio

[edit]

Has been prodded for several months. I'm sure that Ms. Jing is a wonderful person, but this seems to violate WP:BLP, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:VAIN and, well, most of WP:ENC. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that her "wonderful daughter" is not named "Roochel the Great." Pagana 05:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arguments based on policy have more weight- this is not a vote count. This was a discussion on this article, not others. Petros471 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear glossary

[edit]

Unencyclopedic grab-bag of fictional people, places, and things in the Metal Gear series, with no real-world context and no hope for real-world context, no sources and no hope for sources, and no encyclopedic content whatsoever. Was prodded, but was deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per Pinkkeith, no firm rules on glossaries, also I noticed on the Resident Evil page Pinkkeith's comments on all the other articles similar to this and thought I would paraphrase it
You made it very clear that this is a vendetta for you with that statement. Yet, I will answer your inquiry with just one big example: Star Trek. Their index is so large that they broke it down: Characters, Races, All Ships, Lost Ships, Starships classes. Good luck with your quest. --Pinkkeith 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the Star Wars articles, many Pokemon articles ect

(The Bread 04:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep per that whole Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon stuff. Metal Gear is popular enough that the information shouldn't be erased. However, it should be cleaned up and trimmed for brevity. Inmatarian 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was do not want.--SB | T 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Hearts: The Hidden Memories

[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. 7 Google hits, one of them being the Wikipedia article. Also WP:SPAM, since they are also trying to hire other people to work on the comic through the article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spamtastic. I can certainley draw better then that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your information, that is a image made on the computer! And besides, I am not trying to make spam! So buzz off!-Sonicmaster1223
      • Comment Under Wikipedia's rules about spam, solicting for new members to work on your comic is in a way, spam. Additionally, what does the image being made on a computer have to do anything? It doesn't make the comic any more notable. Nevermind, you were responding to Matthew Fenton's comments. And finally, sign your comments with the symbols ~~~~ rather than just leaving your name. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Excerpt from the page This is something I whipped together. It's some cartoon characters on a real life Japanese image.. This suggests the whole thing not noteable enough to be on wikipedia WP:NOTABILITY. Site not recognised by any 3rd party, no awards, no commercial productions etc. Also possibly violation of WP:VANITY. The article does not really appear to be malicious spam. In general, userpages of web communities are not noteable at all. Use Webhosting. User:Yy-bo
  • Delete. Non notable, and a pretty sizable amount of work simply taken from other sources (borrowed/stolen characters depending on your views). Much more worthy comics have gone unmentioned, why mention a relatively worthless one? Also tons of spam and shameless self promotion. I hate to admit it, but this is even worse than the furry fandom article. -Anonymous
  • Delete. Self-promotion of a non-notable, amateurish comic. Completely worthless.
  • Delete. It's a non notable webcomic which actually steals art and uses it for it's own reasons. The amount of detail to go into the page also suggests it's a Vanity article. EvilJelly
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robots in Deus Ex

[edit]

Unsourced and unsourceable list of fictional objects, lacking in real-world context and commentary. No article would benefit from a merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as said in policy, information that can be easily verified by an average adult, doesn't need extra sourcing. All information is taken from the game, where it is present both visually and in text. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree with CP/M that verifiability is not an issue here. — brighterorange (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- No reason to Delete, perfectly legitimate article. There are plenty of similarly fictional articles on Wikipedia and it is both Notable and Interesting for millions of gamers. --Hibernian 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neither of the above keep comments address the lack of real-world content and the lack of the possibility of real-world content. This cannot ever be anything but paraphrasing some minor text in-game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia is not paper. It's a powerful set of multiple server farms, constantly expanding, and able to hold far more than the editors can create. Deus Ex is a real-world game, one of the most popular in the genre, one of the cult cyberpunk games, one which elements are frequently referred to in speech among computer games players. To avoid bloating the Deus Ex article, information about bots was put into a separate page. It is not a one-user page; significant interest from multiple editors keeps it improving. It has a log way to go yet, including only robots in one game, but it does improves and expands, and today is only a fraction of what it will be in the future. And, despite that, even today that article is not a stub, but a good overview of representation of robotics in Deus Ex. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it a project to abridge every single piece of text ever. This article isn't about Deus Ex in the real world, but instead extremely minor elements of the fictional world that appears in those two games. This is nothing more than plot summary (fails WP:NOT), is additionally trivial plot summary of zero interest to anyone but hard-core Deus Ex fans who will already know where to get the info anyway (fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia), and cannot be written from anything but an in-universe perspective due to the total lack of commentary outside of the source work (fails WP:WAF and cannot be cleaned up to work with that). If it ever becomes a "description of robotics in Deus Ex", it will be pure original research, because nobody has ever written a non-trivial work in a reliable source about robotics in Deus Ex. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per MiB's nom and additional comments. Wickethewok 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deus Ex is one of the most famous CRPGs and one of well known cyberpunk works today. The article fits the policies, and the topic has interest outside fans. as it's just a split-off part of Deus Ex article. Did you already get rid of all individual articles about every minor pokemon? If not, better attend them - this is an article merging numerous units, and potentially in two games. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a single word of this article that isn't directly sourced to observation of the subject (in this case, Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War)? If not, it flunks WP:V and WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Quoting: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources". Since the article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, and is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge (and, I'd add, here it is verifiable even by a child), it satisfies the policies.
    So you're admitting that it's nothing more than abridging the source works, something called out in WP:NOT (not a repository of source material or plot summaries). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admitting? Nope. I'm just quoting the policy - it confirms that this article is OK. No speculations, just a separated section for Deus Ex with pure facts. It's not just source material, it's well condensed and concentrated info. Do you suggest to merge it back into Deus Ex? This will bloat it. Del? It will be not a bit different, because interesting and relevant info will get its way there anyway. So let's just keep things as they are.
    I suggest we delete it, because it serves noone for Wikipedia to be the only source describing these fictional objects save for the work in which they appear. It's not info, it's story, and Wikipedia is not the place to retell other people's stories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you want it to be, it is what it is. It is information about robots in a game, which is far more that a story. Furthermore, in a quite influental in CRPG world game. So it's interesting, verifiable information, and the number of editors confirms that it serves many. There's no need to remind that you suggest to delete it; have you ever suggested not to delete something? Your userpage clearly states that you are an extremist deletionist, aimed at fiction-related information, and specifically that you hate whatever you define as cruft. But it is your personal position, one that policies don't agree with. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The game is influential. Every single minor aspect of this game is not necessarily influential, and you've made no case that this aspect is influential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not famous, but, as a part of well-known game, has significance to warrant interest. We could debate over this for a year or two, or maybe for 30 or 50 years if we stand on the positions. However, I'll raise another question.
    What purpose would deletion of this article serve?
    Deletion of non-neutral articles saves WP from bias. Deletion of non-verifiable or pure OR articles saves it from being false. Deletion of vanity pages saves it from becoming an advertising site or a soapbox. Stop here. It doesn't mean we should delete everything. Deletion of FAs would do only harm. Deletion of GA as well. Deletion of articles which do not harm Wikipedia would also serve no purpose for us and harm WP.
    So, respond to the question above, or, repeating, what purpose would this deletion serve? It's not like a typical deletion candidate. It isn't a biased, non-verifiable, vanity or original research article. It is an article like many others, fitting well into schemes adopted long ago by most editors. So? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden lies on you to find non-trivial published works that show this interest. Deleting this article discourages people from misusing this project to describe fictional worlds without reference to the real one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviews of Deus Ex are quite numerous. Use Google. This game used to get very high ratings.
    But you didn't answer my question. I asked what purpose would this deletion serve. Not what personal preference of a few users would it satisfy, or how many users it would discourage from editing Wikipedia.
    If you haven't checked my user page, I am a military engineer, so let me ask the question I'm most used to - how would it help? How would this deletion help the world? How would it help Wikipedia get an edge over other encyclopedias? How would it help anyone?
    CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please find a non-trivial third-party work about robots in Deus Ex.
    As for why we shouldn't have articles like this, I suggest reading WP:WAF#What's wrong with an in-universe perspective?. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I seek it? There's a lot of articles about topics with no works specifically about them - in fact, we wouldn't need Wikipedia if it covered only subjects already well covered outside of it. As said above, we don't need a special work for everything, since the subject is obviously interesting to >1000 people and the article contains verifiable material. Furthermore, it is not written from in-universe unlike you state. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is typical behavior from A Man in Black. As some one has already mentioned, he is just trying to set a precedent with this deletion with his ultimate intention being the removal of all Deus Ex related pages aside from the main game page. Even with his specious and illogical arguments this is obviously his one and only intent (he has already deleted the 'Sihouette' page without so much as a vote).

    As has already been said, the robots of Deus Ex are much more important to its gameplay and story than most other videogames. They are an interesting combination of traditional first-person shooter enemy and game weapon, and as such deserve mention just as much space as other character and weapons pages do. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Silhouette page was deleted after being prodded for five days. As for the rest, the fact that Deus Ex is interesting or important or whatever is reason for there to be an article on the game itself, not every single object, character, and concept appearing in that game. Currently, we are up above two dozen articles devoted to two games, and this ridiculously high level of detail is not appropriate for this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it seems very likely to me that you didn't waste a moment after the time ran out on the prod to delete the offending article. There certainly wasn't nearly the same amount of discussion for that page as ther has been for these. That aside I agree with the other assertions so far. This page does not deserve deletion, but the Deus Ex pages do need reorganization. -- Grandpafootsoldier 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome

[edit]

I'm listing this for Commodore Sloat, who will provide the first deletion reason. I'm neutral. BaseballBaby 06:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's the first nomination, which closed as keep in December 2005: Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome. BaseballBaby 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This belongs in Wikijoke. It's a non-notable neologism that was used as a joke by one columnist; it is not a real "syndrome." Previous deletion vote was 10-7 in favor of delete yet the article was kept anyway.csloat 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, a 10-7 split is considered a lack of consensus, with keep being the usual default in that case. These are not strictly "votes" in the democratic sense. Crockspot 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment incorrect. The closing admin decides keep, no consensus or delete. The closing admin decided it was Keep, not No Consensus based on the discussion, the contributors and policy. This is not a vote. 10-7 is a meaningless term. The bar for delete is higher today because this article was previously Kept and should be weighed as such. --Tbeatty 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge a paragraph or two into List_of_political_epithets, then delete.(changing my vote -see below) Phrase gets about 223,000 hits [13] in Google -notable enough to be listed there, but I doubt we need a whole article for what is essentially just an insult. Armon 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only 642 of those hits are unique. -Elmer Clark 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google hits are not a very accurate gauge of notability; check print sources instead. A Nexis search of all available dates for newspaper articles mentioning this phrase comes up with a grand total of 13, 4 of them letters to the editor. Of the other nine, only one is actually an article about the "syndrome," but it is actually an excerpt of Krauthammer's joke article. Two of the other 8 articles are the same article. So we're down to 8 unique articles in newspapers that even mention the term, one of them being Krauthammer's joke piece and the other 7 all seem to be using the term to poke fun. I just don't see how this joke is notable at all.--csloat 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How many unique newspaper articles are required to be notable? Hard to ascertain, since notability is not specifically an official policy. But eight seem like plenty. Perhaps you could edit them into the article. :) Crockspot 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In any case, the article states it's mostly a blogosphere/talk radio term -and the Google indeed shows a lot of hits, so what's wrong with my suggestion to merge? Armon 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging is fine with me, but there is no need for its own article. And crockspot, notability is in fact official Wikipedia policy.--csloat 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really? According to WP:N, "There is no official policy on notability." I guess that's what I get for believing what I read on Wikipedia. (If this were a blog, I would insert a PWN3D pic here). :O Crockspot 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly a fan of selective reading. This is what else is on that page: "it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Several guidelines (see table on the right) have been created, or are under discussion, to define more precisely what these thresholds should be. Articles on non-notable subjects are frequently nominated for Proposed Deletion and Articles for Deletion, and are frequently deleted via those processes, as can be seen through precedents." So, yes, there is no specific official policy, but articles considered non-notable should be deleted. And if you really think the argument here is about "grinding axes" or inserting "PWN3D" tags, I would suggest that you may be participating here for the wrong reasons.--csloat 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep - Well sourced article, and I have heard the term used by several radio hosts, and seen it on the internet many times, so certainly not non-notable. Crockspot 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC) additional comment I am revising my "vote" to a strong keep. Of all the neologisms on Wikipedia, this one is one of the better sourced. I don't understand the assumption that there are only seven articles mentioning this term, when there are several more than that actually cited in the article. While I believe this was nominated in good faith, since it was nominated by a disinterested third party, the editor who asked them to nominate it may have an axe to grind. This term is indeed widely in use among certain political persuasions, and if you don't believe that the syndrome exists, take a quick spin through Democratic Underground's General Discussions forum for confirmation through observation. Crockspot 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep Appears to be notable through sourcing. Reason given for deletion does not appear to be accurate. If it could be established that Charles Krauthammer was just making a joke instead of a psychological diagnosis then i'd change my vote to delete.Bagginator 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it can easily be established. Read Krauthammer's article. He may have psychiatric credentials, but this article is clearly tongue in cheek. Do you think he really believes, as he writes, that "A plague is abroad in the land"? Or read this passage - "Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood." Or this: "That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living, and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian." Shall we start the Murdoch Derangement Syndrome article now too? Or let's use the closing lines as the clincher: "The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington DC, Attention: Psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple)." Does anyone seriously believe the RNC has a "Psychiatric Department" with a "BDS Foundation"? Hope this information helps you with your vote :)--csloat 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, the fact that a few people have actually used the phrase "Murdoch Derangement Syndrome" [14] may suggest that the original phrase is notable enough to riff on. I think csloat is right, it is tongue in cheek -still a notable epithet though. Armon 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- blogs perhaps; papers no. At least not according to lexis/nexis, which found seven mentions in major papers, all of them poking fun.--csloat 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ive read through the article and seen Charles Krauthammer speak about BDS in several different forums, on Fox News and CSPAN. He appears quite serious to me. I think the part you mistake for a joke is his light hearted attempt to instruct Republicans, Independents and perhaps disaffected Democrats into "curing" BDS by donating to the GOP. That part, I would agree, was delivered in a half joking manner (Although I think he's quite serious about donating to Republicans). Bagginator 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half joking? So you're saying there is a GOP Psychiatric Department with a BDS Foundation? And you're saying that his other comments I quoted above are entirely serious? I'm sorry, no offense, but that seems nonsensical to me. Krauthammer may seriously believe that liberals are delusional - and some of them certainly are - but that entire article is tongue in cheek. He may seriously want people to think liberals are "crazy," and he may want people to donate to the GOP, but to suggest this is a serious medical diagnosis makes Krauthammer look far more ridiculous than he is.--csloat 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lol; that should probably be AfD'd too, but it certainly has been mentioned in far more mainstream sources than BDS. As I said, we're talking about a grand total of 7 articles in major newspapers, all of which are using the term as a joke.--csloat 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to your original research, there are seven. The article actually cites ten unique newspaper articles. Please stop ignoring the facts in favor of your own OR. Crockspot 12:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, searching a database is not "original research." Why is a Nexis search more "original" than a google search? And, as for the discrepancy, my search was for "Major papers"; I don't think that local papers like the Kansas City Star were included. But I'm happy to stipulate ten articles on this in print; that doesn't change the fact that this is a joke.--csloat 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mentioned more? I seriously doubt that. Heck, a Google News[15] search of both terms just now shows BDS with more references (24) than Fitzmas (7). Besides, notability of a term isn't limited to usage in mainstream media sources. There are countless words and phrases with Wiki entries that aren't used by the mainstream media at all. Should they be deleted, too? There are several very notable, very popular websites that aren't mainstream media sources that use the term regulary. Sorry, but I find your arguments and reasoning extremely faulty and unconvincing. Jinxmchue 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment had you tried your search in october you would have found a different result. As for websites listed on wikipedia, if they have fewer than 10 articles in major papers mentioning them, sure, they should be deleted too. Sorry you don't find my reasoning convincing, but you certainly haven't identified any "faults" in it. In any case, I don't see the point of having a page for a snide joke made by a pundit. Shall we have a page for every joke made by Byron York or David Corn too? But what do I know; I was in favor of deleting this ridiculous page too. My problem with pages like this is it makes BDS notable rather than simply reports or explains its notability. I don't think it's wikipedia's job to make things notable or otherwise participate in that process.--csloat 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I just checked and Fitzmas has 18 hits in major papers, more than twice as many as BDS. For what it's worth.--csloat 07:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Csloat, I take exception to your continuous effort to understate the number of sources cited in the article. There are not fewer than ten, there are exactly ten, a fact that you choose to ignore in favor of your own count obtained through original research. Let's base our discussion on what is actually in the article, not on OR external to the article. Crockspot 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read above comment. There is nothing more "original" about my research than there is in a google search. And I'm happy to stipulate ten articles; my search was through "Major papers," so some of the sources are not included as they are not "major."--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what search engine you're using, but Google News search still shows far more hits for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" than for "Fitzmas." Jinxmchue 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using lexis/nexis. Google News includes blogs and other non-notable sources. It also lists the same article several times if it is posted on different web pages. In cases like this, I feel a database of actual published sources is a far better gauge of notability than google. Happy to accept results from another database like infotrac if you like.--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research WP:OR; unless it is history, backed by publications, well-established into culture for years. 18 hits, 7 articles not noteable enough. See Cocacolonization, Ghey (ghey used over years, but not seriously established). User:Yy-bo
Comment I don't think a WP:OR arguement holds any water. There is no OR in the wiki article. It comes from a published source, and is referred to by other published sources, all reliable. And as I pointed out above, while notability is not an official policy of Wikipedia, there are plenty of sources (actually ten newspaper articles) cited in the article to prove notability. Crockspot 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well it is not a scientificially proven syndrome. Reason for nomination (delete): It is not much more than simple word usage. Don't know if i understnad everything. User:Yy-bo 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: only about 600 of those hits are unique; many are to copies of this wikipedia page and most are blogs. When a search is run through a database of real articles like Nexis, we come up with only 7 mentioning the term, and all are poking fun. Your claim about the afd makes it sound like you think this is a real syndrome. Do you not see that this is a joke?--csloat 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again with the understated numbers based on your original research? There are now ELEVEN UNIQUE NEWSPAPER REFERENCES CITED IN THE ARTICLE. I think I'm picking up a touch of CDS. (csloat derangement syndrome). Crockspot 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE READ MY RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THAT AND STOP YELLING AT ME. Thanks.--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, for a joke, it certainly seems to describe a very real phenomenon, and secondly, I don’t recall asking for your opinion my little stalker friend. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of striking out your unfair, uncalled for, and completely false personal attack. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your nonsense. If you can't tell this is a joke, I suggest you take an English course at a local university where you might learn about such things as "satire" and "figures of speech."--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was quite a liberty you took. It is not up to you to strike another editor's signed comments. You can certainly express your opinion about them, but they are his comments to strike, not yours. Crockspot 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a personal attack without foundation. Please take a look at WP:NPA.--csloat 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an insult if it's true Sloat, you follow me around from article to article like a lost puppy dog. Please stop. And considering that I am better educated (and probably more widely published) that you are, I don’t think that I need advice on how to recognize satire from you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TDC, you are full of shit. I am getting sick of responding to this charge from you on every page I edit. As I have said over and over again, it is false. I have NEVER stalked you, and your crap about puppy dogs is ludicrous. If anything, you have stalked me; you frequently edited pages that you clearly know nothing about just to revert edits I have made to those pages. But I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the phony stalking charge. Wikipedia policy on stalking specifically backs me up here. You may be better educated than me, but you skipped basic reading comprehension in your studies if you think I am "stalking" you or if you think "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is an actual psychological condition. I'm not sure I would consider Wikipedia edits to be refereed publications, but I'm not sure why it would be relevant at all to this discussion how widely published you are, unless perhaps you have been publishing about Bush Derangement Syndrome.--csloat 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is devolving rapidly, and now you are the one who is attacking. To lighten the mood a little, I thought we might all have a laugh over this prime example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Enjoy. Crockspot 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are the posts [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698028/posts here] evidence of Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Just curious. You're right, we could stand to lighten the mood, but when I am attacked (as I always am whenever TDC enters the picture), I will defend myself. And I have not made any personal attacks here. I suppose you could say calling him "full of shit" is a personal attack, but it is based on clear and observable evidence. I apologize to everyone else who has to read this, though - TDCs constant personal attacks against me are nothing new and have nothing to do with this page.--csloat 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I am attacked (as I always am whenever csloat enters the picture), I will defend myself. And I have not made any personal attacks here. I suppose you could say calling him "a stalker" is a personal attack, but it is based on clear and observable evidence. I apologize to everyone else who has to read this, though – csloat’s constant personal attacks against me are nothing new and have nothing to do with this page Funny how it works both ways. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very funny, except for two things: (1) I did not start with the personal attacks, you did, and (2) I never stalked you. Other than that, kudos for being amusing.--csloat 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can you take this elsewhere, please? Jinxmchue 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I do not normally like neologisms for an encyclopedia and this is one. Don't such things really have a better place in wikidictionaries? I did not do any outside research so I could be convinced to change my view, but based upon the article it is the unique expression used by one person and referred to by one other person. Plus it is sort of an insulting joke thing. Is that really encyclopedic? I also do not think faddish blogosphere stuff is good for an encyclopedia. I know that I am out of step, but I do not think fads like fo' shizzle my nizzle are encyclopedic. But as I said, my sense of delete is weak. I could be swayed. --Blue Tie 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe WP:NPA ---Mmx1 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's being attacked?? Simple example of BDS psychological displacement Metalman780 06:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have used this article for reference more than 5 times since I discovered it. The value to the readers is what merits keeping it. The accusation that this is a 'neologism' is weak in that new words always need to be created when a new concept needs discussion. This is a very viable concept. Deleting the words used to name it from an encyclopedia will not make the concept go away, it will just remove a name for it. KeyStroke 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of J.T

[edit]

Non-notable TV show shown only on public TV. 8 unique Google hits for "The adventures of J.T". Page creator removed PROD tag without explanation -Elmer Clark 07:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this series may not be extremely well renound this information is still useful for many people, and as stated in the article the show has in no way entered the internet i.e. not created a website and therefore this explains the lack of google hits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azed 56 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronsohn Sher Aboulafia Amoday & Co.

[edit]

nn company--Sss6e 08:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kukujiau

[edit]

nn and or --Sss6e 08:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous parents of twins

[edit]

Pointless, unsourced list. The people on it aren't even famous for having twins, they are just famous people who happen to be the parents of twins as well. I cannot fathom any possible use for this list. -Elmer Clark 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's not worthy of even that. -Elmer Clark 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how that's any improvement? -Elmer Clark 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 14:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Mackenzie

[edit]

Non notable webcam star, as far as I can figure. Around 600 Google hits for "Taylor Mackenzie" and "Babestation", which isn't a lot for someone actively trying to promote their webcam sites. Brianyoumans 08:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plus this is not spam, there are no adverts or links for her here. She was a professional TV presenter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.199.36 (talk • contribs)

  • Very Strong Delete - Simply having appeared as a TV presenter is no grounds for notability. I suspect vanity. I am in the UK and she is not famous. --No more bongos 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Very Strong Keep - I'm from the UK and she is famous. Very famous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.72.125 (talk • contribs)
    • First edit from this IP. Strongly suspect all the unsigned ip comments are from the same person - all resolve to the same part of london on traceroute. Such a low number of google hits clearly shows the subject isn't famous. Most of the hits are spamlinks anyway. (No more bongos 16:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Absolutely keep! I'm not from the UK, but rather the USA, and I say she is both famous and notable. Her Yahoo group has over 2200 members. Her fame grows despite the fact she hasn't been on UK television in a couple of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.231.93 (talk • contribs)


  • Very Strong KEEP - I'm from the UK and you have loads of articles on this website that mean nothing to me. So Taylor, should stay!!! She is very famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.81.196 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sims 99

[edit]

Suspected vanity. No reliable, independant sources. Pointless list of modertators Drat (Talk) 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banks & Shane

[edit]

Was originally considered for speedy-deletion; however, Banks & Shane appears to be a legitimate band (I searched for them on Google). I feel this article's deletion should be discussed first. -- P.B. Pilhet 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

Comment Let's not get carried away here. Google gets 171 unique hits, not exactly an avalanche.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - They seem to be somewhat of a local institution; I'm not sure how much they have gotten out of their local area, I can't verify the bit about touring (although it doesn't seem unreasonable.) Very mainstream, but we have a lot of death metal bands on Wikipedia that probably haven't played to 1/100th the audience that these folks have. --Brianyoumans 04:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup Seems legit enough. Although low on the Google radar there is some third party coverage (although local) [18] or [19]. And there's at least a claim that they played at the democratic convention in 88 [20]. Pascal.Tesson 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--SB | T 23:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackula nosferatu

[edit]

Nonsense or at best original research. No sources provided. "Blackula nosferatu" gives a single Google hit (for a page which does not even contain the term), and while "Blackula" on its own gives more, most are about the movie, not the creature. That the article cannot decide whether Blackula is fictious is just the nail in the coffin. Delete. --Huon 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Cucerzan

[edit]

A vanity/autobiographical cv for the "president of the Cluj-Napoca division of the Youth organisation of the Christian-Democratic People's Party". Subject gets 28 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. Punkmorten 08:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GT Enterprises

[edit]

NN Indian establishment - possible vanity article Blood red sandman 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. I am --fredericknoronha 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) a journalist who writes on Free/Libre and Open Source Software in India, and Asia. I would like to state that I am the author of this article, have no stake whatsoever in GT Enterprises, and feel this article should be retained in view of the role played by this firm in promoting FLOSS in this part of the globe.[reply]

    Because I found Taranath newsworthy, I have written about him in the past, including here -- http://www.maailma.kaapeli.fi/asia.html : "Other firms like GTCdRom, run by former navy officer Taranath in Bangalore, attract huge crowds at IT events such as IT.Com held annually in that city which some consider the 'Silicon Valley of India'."

    When you call it a "possible vanity article" your assumption is that the author of this article is part of the firm itself, or in some way related to it. I would like to emphatically add that the only reason I write this is because I find the matter to be worthy of an entry in here, and feel that concerns of relevance to South Asia should also adequately reflect in the Wikipedia. Please check my other contributions to verify what I'm saying, and my possible motives. --fredericknoronha 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not meet WP:CORP. It is not listed on any stock market. Does not return any hits on Google news and as far as I could tell, it is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. I could find some references about it being the one of the few Linux distributors in India, but that still does not make it a notable company. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing Community

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No notability asserted, and the only thing that could possibly be a reference is an interview with the creator on an equally-minor game site. Was deprodded without explaination, and has been tagged for cleanup and no-notability-asserted for months. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't come close to satisfying WP:WEB. Hammer Raccoon 16:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, game fansites aren't automatically notable. Granted, it's the second google hit for "Animal Crossing", and thus might get some interesting traffic, and I've visited the site a couple of times, but as far as I can tell, the site doesn't really have much in it that would warrant an article of its own. "It's a giant honking fansite. It has stuff related to the game." Umm, yeah, what makes it so special that tells it apart from other sites? Did Kazumi Totaka compose them a love ballad or something? The whole purpose of the site can be summed into an external link on Animal Crossing (GameCube game) article, though: "A big fansite where people can trade patterns, town tunes, and other related material." Or maybe the xlink doesn't even need a description - the site is self-explanatory. But an xlink it is, and as an xlink it can stay - I have no objection to that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No deletion category, should be Web. As it looks not enough forum members to be noteable. Means delete. Not completely non-noteable. User:Yy-bo 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Petros471 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dii Familiaris

[edit]

"Dii Familiaris" seems to be a neologism. Besides that, this article asserts that Limentinus and Forculus were an actual part of Roman mythology, which may not be true. The only ancient sources describing these two Gods are clearly biased - Tertullian (200AD), Cyprian(200AD), and later Augustine(400AD). Cyprian and Augustine, at least, use the gods to deride Roman religion, and Tertullian uses them to illustrate a point. These are not reliable sources.

The fruit of my research is at User:JayW/Forculus ref. Cardea/Carna is cited by both Ovid and Macrobius, so we can presume her existance. I doubt the others, though... Delete as neologism. JayW 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Lares Familiares. The Latin phrase is misspelled anyway, it should be Dii Familiares if anything, but apparently that's just a synonym [21] for a group of deities we already have articles on. As for the minor individuals like Forculus - JayW's research seems to indicate they were at least talked about in late antiquity, so I guess they deserve their articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Fut.Perf. Dlyons493 Talk 11:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to fix the spelling mistake. Expand with JayW's research as a starting place. In my mind the dii familiares (where this should move to) are distinct from the lares; the lares were familial, these gods were public, though had little by way of public cultus. The Romans were fond of deifying abstractions, and seeing presiding genii over all homely pursuits; these minor gods are not much different in inspiration from Vesta or Nike/Victory. As to the unreliability of Tertullian and Augustine as attesting to their existence, I am inclined to accept them as far as they go; unlikely they could get away with making up deities. With ancient sources, you sometimes have to go with what you're given; see Amafanius. The article surely ought to point out that the only source of these gods' existence is in hostile accounts of Roman religion. To their number ought to be mentioned Crepitus (mythology) - I really need to expand that, he figures in an important passage of Flaubert - and Stercutius, who has an article on the French side at least. Crepitus may be Voltaire's invention though; Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary tended to mock the idea of gods in general. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On third (or is this the fourth?) thought, merge this with Di indigetes. Numina might also be profitably merged there as well. The current article at di indigetes is little more than a list pointing to a whole bunch of stubs. All of these minor gods probably don't really need separate articles, and merging them might offer the possibility of categorizing them by function or domain. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Thing (Faith No More song)

[edit]

Nominated for deletion per notability. Thanks 

  Dubc0724 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it appears this was done as part of the Wikiproject songs... again, no real strong opinion here, but whatever the outcome of this is it should also be done to Woodpecker from Mars which is another song article from this album for a song that was never released as a single.--Isotope23 16:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete. There is no need for articles containing 2-line descriptions of every song on an album. That info should be put in the album article. I.e. unless it is released as a single. Spearhead 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I recall this being played on 2JJJ in 1990 but 2JJJ plays lots of album tracks. It might have been released as a single but unlike Epic wasn't a hit. Certainly we would want more information about it. Capitalistroadster 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I can't speak for what they released as singles in AU, but in the States they only released the first three album tracks as singles ("From Out Of Nowhere", "Epic", & "Falling to Pieces"); the first had no real impact, but the other two were hits. I've heard their cover of "War Pigs" as well as "Zombie Eaters" on a local radio station that used to play album tracks by request after midnight... but IMO non-single album tracks don't need an article unless there is something substantial to say about them.--Isotope23 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Main article not really bad layout. Other songs have own articles as well. User:Yy-bo 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YoungCoders

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, the notability criteria for websites. Namely, no mention in anything other than blogs and forums, and no major awards for its content. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a web directory. dmoz would probably be a better place. Prod was removed by an IP editor without comment. ColourBurst 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Newcomb

[edit]

Not notable; a terrible article, no doubt copied from his acting resume, but the real problem is: he's an actor in regional theatre, a prof, and a regional expert on stage fighting. Notable? If you use the 'professor' notability test, I don't think he is much more notable than any professor of theatre.--Brianyoumans 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question Is there a notability standard for stage actors? This guy has 26 Nexis hits under "James Newcomb and Shakespeare", including a nice notice or two. If he were on the stage in New York, I would tag him as "strong keep" for certain. How much do we discount because he gets the review in Portland, Oregon instead? Uucp 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a resume, not an article. There is no specific test for stage actors that I'm aware of, but from the evidence presented he doesn't meet any of the general criteria at WP:BIO. Thryduulf 08:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Weaver

[edit]

delete artist who has just released her debut album (March 2006), and does not appear to pass WP:MUS. She seems to be an artist very local to Manchester, and none of her songs have charted. No sign of the Amazon.com referred to in the article. Ohconfucius 13:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not at all. This is an artist that has been performing and releasing records for over twelve years. She has a loyal nationwide following, as testified by her London performance in July, which I attended, and at which she received a rapturous reception. The Amazon review can be accessed by entering the album title in at the amazon.co.uk website (perhaps you're using amazon.com, which does not include the same review?). Her wider nationwide popularity is also attested to by her BBC showcase and also the following she has at her MySpace site). Also, I'm not sure whether chart success is a very accurate indicator of an artist's artistic merit or even popularity.

Labcoat 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC - no charted hits, no national tours, no multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I'm sorry WP's guidelines and policies are believed to be inaccurate for this one artist, but it's the same level playing-field for all. The BBC showcase mentioned is not a review, but a listing of a performance with playable tracks. Fan reviews (MySpace, Amazon) are perhaps understandably enthusiastic, but the lamented WP:MUSIC requires "reliable" and "reputable" media. Tychocat 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark2.0

[edit]

This minor concept is already covered by the Web 2.0 article; the article content is also plainly incorrect – the tm controversy raises traditional tm issues, certainly not "emerging issues". Tuoreco 05:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not about the Web2.0 article. And where party X seeks to demonstrate or establish trade mark rights concerning any word or words (even "freedom of expression"), *in relation to specified products or services* (and sometimes, products or services which are in turn related to such products & services), and party Y uses that word or words without authorisation, it is a traditional issue - making this article mutton dressed as lamb. Otherwise, new substantive articles or content on trade marks are really thin on the ground and would have my diehard keep vote, for whatever that's worth. PS: thanks for the AfD nomination complete, bot (wouldn't mind the instructions on the relevant page explained a little more clearly for us less au fait). Tuoreco 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. james(talk) 12:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Records artists

[edit]

This is the sort of lists which is bordering on the indiscriminate per WP:NOT. In addition, its name does not follow naming conventions. Ohconfucius 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be quite a lot of argumentation along the lines that "what harm is there in a list?". I contend that unless they are short and "closed" in nature, lists more often than not indiscriminate. However, the reason why categories exist in the first place is to enable better organisation and cross referencing. Including artists within the appropriate category is efficient; indexing is automatic: a category can be browsed much more easily than scrolling down a long list, which has to be updated; The mergers of labels and artists switching labels would make this list problematic. Ohconfucius 12:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. - Bobet 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude and Heading Reference Systems (AHRS)

[edit]

The article is a duplication of Attitude and Heading Reference Systems and potentially POV fork. Even if retained as a redirect, it is a namespace, even longer than the article of the main topic. Ohconfucius 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as duplicate article. --Dennette 11:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Heinrich

[edit]

Not notable enough. abakharev 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Arthur (musician)

[edit]

I'm a bit iffy on this one, but I really don't think this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC at this point. The page states he's opened for several big-name artists, and has three albums. The first two albums, as near as I can tell, were released independently, and the third album is on Bardic Records - a company that has little to no 'net coverage (I found one reference to its website - which is a domain placeholder). References to the artist himself are slim as well; the one interview in the article goes to a web-based magazine that refers to the artist playing a lot of high schools. WP:MUSIC suggests two major-label (or at least reasonably well-known label) albums, a national tour, awards, etc.; I see none of the above. PROD was removed, so I bring it here. Delete - with no concerns over a recreation if Mr. Arthur breaks more widely. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W.Marsh. I would like to see some source citation for the opening acts but the legit label and the album review puts it in good standing with WP:MUSIC. 205.157.110.11 10:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:MUSIC. He's just not there, yet. WP:MUSIC requires charted hits, national tours, two or more albums released by a major label, and multiple non-trivial third-party articles (not just one or two). The Google search which "suggests" that reliable sources exist, only shows me there's a lot of people named Ben Arthur. I do see a lot of listings at download sites, which I presume is him, that may inflate the Ghits, but that's why Google isn't the final arbiter of notability. I would be more impressed by the AllMusic review if they weren't by just any registered member. Tychocat 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In regards to W.marsh above, The Orchard (music label), upon looking at their website, is not a label, but a digital distributor of music *for* indie labels and artists. They distribute some big-name artists, but I'll note that this fellow isn't on their list at present (unless he's included in the 'And 14,000 more' at the bottom of the list). (Looks like their article needs some work to reflect this.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like his first two albums were on his own label called "Chicken Butter". So that probably needs to be updated. The Bethling 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with the results that folks have turned up - and believe me, I did work on this one for a while and didn't manage to turn those up - I'd be happy to Withdraw this nomination at this point (or just let it go to the keep that it's likely to get). I still have questions about the quality of the references (looks like there's a lot of indie bands being reviewed by Rolling Stone, for example), but it looks like he's squeaking over the line at this point. Admins? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triaria

[edit]

Doubtful source, irrelevant. Also see [24] LostJedi 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence of lasting historical contribution to anything, beyond virtually being a dicdef. Tychocat 10:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The wife of an emperor has the potential to be historically significant but obviously more needs to be included into the stub to establish that. I'll be interested to see what the AfD would bring. I could go either way. 205.157.110.11 10:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she was married to Lucius Vitellius, how come she's not mentioned in his article? --Dennette 11:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tacitus seems to confirm she was L. Vitellius's wife and she had some independent political activity. The Histories ISBN 0192839586 p.94 says her cruelty was altogether unwomanly (aside, here I bite my tongue and pass on quickly) and that she terrified Flavius Sabinus the City Prefect. She was the mother sister-in-law of the future emperor Aulus Vitellius. Also behaved in a rather unfeminine fashion at the sack of Tarracina, however Boccaccio praised her for her courage. Dlyons493 Talk 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Dlyons is kind enough to put his Tacitus and Boccaccio attestations into the article. Everything that's in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology should be Wikipediable too - ideally, Wikipedia ought to be a superset of specialist encyclopedias of that kind. But the Boccaccio thing is what really matters: it shows she was still notable over a millennium after she lived. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the two persuasive comments above. Sandstein 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the improved article. The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. GRBerry 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Future Perfect. This is precisely what WP is for, I had no idea that the mother of Vitellius mentioned in Tacitus was also mentioned in Boccaccio. I do not disagree with GRBerry's statement, but I would urge him not to mention it, as it screws up the incentives for AfD-nominators. Hornplease 06:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really confused now ... Lucius Vitellius still says, "He married Sextilia, a reputable woman from a distinguished family. They had two sons: Aulus, who was the short-lived Emperor Vitellius in 69, and the younger Lucius." ... was Sextilia another one of her names? Neither of those articles (father and son) make mention of her, or link back to this article. Is someone going to fix those two as well? (BTW, that would change my "Delete" to a "Keep".) --Dennette 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.' – Alensha  talk 18:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Anthony Gerard Thorn

[edit]

Obit for a person of no demonstrated notability. Delete --Peta 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete He was ranked amongst the top three City city sellers before retiring at age 33. There is some evidence The Times was considering an obituary, though this remains unconfirmed. He also captained a Cambridge varsity team. Nevertheless obituary format is not best and it should be edited, principallly by removing opinion and sentimentality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.220.102.21 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 Sep 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article is copyvio from a weblog written by the contributor. I'm sorry he's dead, too, but WP is not a place for memorials per WP:NOT. Only ONE distinct Ghit, the aforementioned weblog. Six general Google hits, which bespeaks to notability. Lack of documentation is also failure of WP:V, and article further appears to be original research. Tychocat 10:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he appears nn, I'm not sure that text added from a blog by the writer of that blog is against WP:Copyright. Hornplease 06:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expect to err on the side of caution, pending expert advice. Tychocat 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Stojković

[edit]

I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice cream changes

[edit]

Neologism (around 100 GHits for '"ice cream changes" jazz' [25]), unverifiable. - Mailer Diablo 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geotagger

[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable product. MER-C 11:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indzhe

[edit]

Unverifiable information. Note that Googling the subject appears to be more to be a geographical location. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cale

[edit]

Notability? No references. Another press puff piece by SRNuttall (professional PR and copywriter [26]). Cain Mosni 11:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draze.com

[edit]

Delete Non-notable search engine company that fails WP:CORP. No sources for most of the claims in the article, so unverifiable. Reads like a marketing blurb instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. Prod removed - see discussion on talk page Gwernol 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crew (band)

[edit]

Fails to meet any of the requirements listed under Notability:Music. While well written, reads like a fan page. Nezu Chiza 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KyleSOFT

[edit]

Vanity company page, of a broadcaster with 855 subscribers and 10 unique ghits--Aim Here 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, looks like no merge. Punkmorten 22:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerz

[edit]

This is a non-notable brand name product. It's mere advertising. Perhaps some of the history section could be merged into succinic acid, though. Deli nk 11:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser (tablet)

[edit]

It seems to be just an advertisement for a non-notable dietary supplement. Deli nk 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a similar product called DEREX that was deleted. Nunquam Dormio 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert.--Isotope23 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an ad for a not particularly notable product. And it doesn't work. GassyGuy 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For whatever it's worth, this has been here for over a year and had lots of edits by different users. In its current form, it is mostly arguing that the product doesn't work. As such, it is definately not spam--if anything, it's a warning not to use the product. I am not voting because I have no idea what the standard of notability is for medications/suppliments, but this really isn't spam. ergot 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iusethis

[edit]

COntested prod, no evidence of notability.--Peta 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links mentioning iusethis: [29] [30] delicious digg 285_000 google results.

Why research when we can just wank, though?

Jrockway 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 287000 Google hits, yes, which it manages to distill down to "useful" 59 hits (a significant proportion of the duplication coming from iusethis.com itself). So someone's been link farming. What of it? That screams NN to me (not to mention deliberate misrepresentation). It's the independent Ghits that matter. A mention on digg, delicio.us and a blog or two do not amount to notability.
I don't see that the site being an example of an implementation of something by someone being in any way a justification of its notability in its own right (on which is based its merit for its own article). You want it cited as an implementation example, go right ahead on the appropriate page. Two lines is all that takes at most, not a whole article.
The task of WP is to document that which is notable, not that which may be expected to become such. Whilst you are the author of the artcile in question, and you no doubt feel somewhat slighted by the suggestion of its removal that does not excuse incivility. Cain Mosni 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fair argument, except for the rediculous accusation of Link Farming. I added the article because it's one of 4 major sites that uses Catalyst. Links that go nowhere defeat the entire purpose of a Wiki, so deleting the article will degrade the experience of people visiting the Catalyst page, etc.
128.135.99.80 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128.135.99.80 is me, BTW. Jrockway 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call 286000 indexable links from a site back to itself, if not link farming? Even if it's a (very conservative 80% of the total links on Google - judging by the proportion of links from the site back to itself if you ask Google to list them without suppression) that's nearly a quarter million links from the site back to itself. A site that's a mere 2 months old. By comparison, the BBC News site, which has been around for about 10 years, only has 6 and a half million links, and its one of the busiest news sites there is. Cain Mosni 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IN light of fact that author found some importance, I would suggest merging it into a larger category page that has to do with it. Perhaps use it to expand the article that linked to it in the first place? Goldenrowley 02:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think you all should do well to remember that google's page count's are just estimates, and sometimes wildly inaccurate. For instance:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aosx.iusethis.com&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official 

Shows that google has indexed 22 000 pages for osx.iusethis.com.

however http://www.google.com/search?hs=sHI&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=osx.iusethis.com+-site%3Aosx.iusethis.com&btnG=Search shows that there are 31 300 hits for osx.iusethis.com when you exclude the site itself.

which indicates that the 286 000 hits number from google above has to be incorrect.

Marcusramberg 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) -- (I wasn't going to get involved in this, but I'm offended at being accused of black hat SEO practices). If you want to claim that I'm doing something like that, I'd like to see an example of a page on the site that's only there to game the search engines rather than benefit the user.[reply]

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

The result was delete. Remember this is a disussion based on policy, not a vote count. Petros471 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki on a Stick

[edit]

Google for Wiki on a stick - Wikipedia gets around 180 unique hits [31]. Article has no sources, no evidence of meetign WP:SOFTWARE, and lots of web links and namechecks. Guy 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:NPOV are, and without a degree of notability we cannot formally verify that the article is neutral, also it may violate WP:NOT a directory / an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:SOFTWARE is a set of criteria which indicate, if met, that sufficient external coverage exists to allow a verifiably neutral article. WP:INTERESTING is not policy either, but the above seem to be arguing that it is grounds for inclusion. Guy 09:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been looking for a simple wikki and this meets my needs perfectly, so that shows the article is usefull. It is also, as far as I can tell, a unique concept that deserves exposure.—the preceding comment is by 87.74.42.131 - 14:34, 13 September 2006: Please sign your posts!
  • Keep it Is a sad day when the criteria for entry is it has not been noticed enough

"only that others haven't noticed that to a degree sufficient to warrant an article in an encyclopedia" 212.69.56.91 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)JJC_UK - 16:53, 13 September 2006:[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakaratai and Derry Anime and Manga Association

[edit]

Contested prods. Non-notable organization with 0 and 22 Ghits respectively. Contents of the articles are unverifiable through reliable sources and constitutes original research. They are also vanity articles, especially with quotes such as, "The group, which was founded in August of 2006". TheFarix (Talk) 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the amount of hits on Google should constitute the importance of a group or organization. This article has nothing to do with Vanity, as previously stated it is to spread information and increase awareness.

Equally there would be no ghits on the name as the group, by this name only came into existence, however has been operating under another name [as the article explains] under a different name for over two years. Before you decide to delete it I would appreciate getting more information on why. {{Butch-cassidy 08:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

This article has nothing to do with Vanity, as previously stated it is to spread information and increase awareness.
But that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has notability and verifiability guidelines, and if an article can't abide by them, it should not exist. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 09:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G1 as hoax by User:JesseW. ColourBurst 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermiferous consto

[edit]

Nonsense, delete --Peta 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Don't know why it is, but I've seen a pretty consistent pattern on articles like this. When someone logs in (new account of course) to create an article, then immediately logs out to do further edits to the article and talk page as an anon IP, it's very rarely a legitimate article. Fan-1967 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TitiWiki

[edit]

100 unique Googles, no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Short and unsourced. Guy 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prasara

[edit]

Text is original research Dsreyn 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOR, and is sourceless. Picaroon9288•talk 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja-Tail Enterprises, LLC

[edit]

Both non-notable and unverifiable. The company president's own page has been tagged as potentialvanity, and I would say that goes for this as well. (This deletion nomination is anWP:AFC created for 82.35.102.213) --Konstable 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • In fact, according to the articles for the two songs, one of them was never released whereas the other never charted on any sales chart - both only figured in the club play charts. For me, this is NN. The article as it stands is unverifiable as well. -No more bongos 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It is just as notable of a company as any other company. They have released a film, and are also La Toya Jackson's record company and the founder of the Star Ice beverage. P. Diddy and Jermaine Dupri's record labels have their own pages - how is this any difference. Rhythmnation2004 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnt Haakon Aanesen

[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. This spelling and his Norwegian spelling generate only 20 google hits apiece. His entry on the Norwegian wikipedia appears to be in question as well. —Xezbeth 13:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billex

[edit]

Non-notable company that does not meet WP:CORP. Vanity article also, as author is "Billex", same as article title. Speedy and prod were removed by author. Wildthing61476 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No one appeared to want to keep the actual article, redirect can be set up outside of afd. Petros471 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Band (Band)

[edit]

Does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Was de-speedied by an admin with "it's hard to verify Non-english bands so this may be notable". WP:BAND still applies, the article itself must document notability, so delete. Femto 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McKay

[edit]

Notable? Not an original thinker anyway. No disrespect meant. MacRusgail 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matmice

[edit]

Advertising MacRusgail 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yukaysh

[edit]

Not notable. Orphan article to boot. MacRusgail 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz.com

[edit]

Converting prod to AfD; This article was originaly Prod'D for not meeting WP:CORP notaility. Taking it to AfD to get a community consensus. I am abstaining from casting an opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. Just want to point out that WP:CORP says: A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. The firm MyWikiBiz.com has been written about here in the French version of Ziff Davis Media and here in the German newspaper Die Welt, with daily circulation of over 200,000. That's multiple. And that's non-trivial. Please be certain you know what you're talking about if you state that the company "fails to meet" WP:CORP. Of course, I'm not saying there aren't other reasons to delete this article at this time, such as failing WP:NPOV, since I think some of the subsequent edits were carried out with personal bias. You may disagree. Other than that, have fun, everyone! --MyWikiBiz 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ...Eight days now since nomination. ZZZzzz... --MyWikiBiz 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) -~-~-~-~Wow, nine (9) days now, since nomination. What's the record duration for an AFD not to be decided on by an admin? I thought the guidelines say "at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it will always be closed within a few more days at most. Asking for someone to close the discussion is not necessary." This AFD must be radioactive or something. --MyWikiBiz 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just a note that WP:CORP isnt my reason, i was just turning it from a prod to an AfD for consensus. I will not be expressing my opinions on this matter hence why i abstain. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Fan-1967 says below, I asumed WP:CORP meant more than two (multiple rather than couple). However, I guess that's personal choice. Seeing as I can read neither french nor german, I can not comment wheather the newpaper articles are about wikipedia, or about MyWikiBiz (although it certainly was mentioned quite a few times in those articles, esp the german one). In my book though, this one is still non notable. Thε Halo Θ 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go up to a mother who just gave birth to twins ("only" two babies), and ask, "Hi, did you just have multiple births?" I think you know what she'll answer. Might even curse at you! Anyway, just wanted to add that bit of levity and perspective on a word. "Multiple", according to most dictionaries, means "more than one". I really don't mind if this article gets deleted at this time. The business really isn't notable. Yet. --MyWikiBiz 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MyWikiBiz.com has barely met WP:CORP; and I talked myself out of a "Neutral" rating while writing my explanation, since I was doing what I oppose - changing how I evaluated the company against the standard because of their interactions on wikipedia. While I do not feel comfortable taking a postiion because it seems that anything having to do with MyWikiBiz is unnecessarily polemic, the openly hostile approach of some to a company that has openly stated their intentions, invited community review, made some bad jokes & mistakes, but overall acted responsibly is bad policy. One of the reasons I like wikipedia over all other internet areas is because there is generally mutual respect and concern even amongst those who take drastically different positions. MyWikiBiz deserves at least that much from us. The sources, while not in English, push me over to keep, as we should apply the standards equally. --Trödel 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This company meets the very letter of our WP:CORP guidelines and is uniquely notable as mentioned above. RFerreira 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I too like Trödel find myself disliking them without a fair evaluation based on their idiotic behavior.... but based on strictly the facts, they barely pass our guidelines and I guess that means they should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While it is true that there are two non-trivial (foreign language) sources, MyWikiBiz hasn't really done all that much, and the coverage is more due to the concept than its activity. When you add that to the essentially emphemeral and transitory nature of online businesses/services, I don't think I can vote keep. --maru (talk) contribs 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only passes a very generous reading of WP:CORP. I agree w/maru. Eusebeus 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't feel those articles meet the requirement of non-trivial coverage: they're more about the phenonemon of paid Wiki articles than the company itself. Mark Grant 13:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak merge the non-company-specific stuff to paid wiki coverage. certainly a nascent phenomenon. ~ct.e 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Alkivar. bbx 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to me that to include this would require the rules of WP:CORP to be stretched in the wrong direction. Since this content is about a user of wikipedia, I think it would be better to include it on his user page. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c)
  • Delete, 2 mentions does not make it notable. Verifiable yes, but there are millions of non notable companies with 2 press mentions. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-16t05:44z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Space Storage and Extra space

[edit]

Company fails WP:CORP, non-notable company. Adding both listings to this nomination Dipics 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra info. I was trying to be very conservative with the articles because a lot of what I found were re-prints of their own press releases. These guys are one of only two comapanies I could find that are using the REIT as a foundation to grow another business (self storage). The other company is a direct competitor Shurgard.

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSmeet

[edit]

No assertion of this forum's notability per WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abid bhatti

[edit]

Non-notable, and likely vanity. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Jackson

[edit]

This article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting (checkuser), I relisted the nomination. WinHunter (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(original nom statement) article was created by the person himself for hyping purposes. does not appear to be a notable person or notable enough to be included in wikipedia Wikiyoman 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Verjee

[edit]

This article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting (checkuser), I relisted the nomination. WinHunter (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (original nom statement) not notable, appears to be written by the person himself for vanity purposes Wikiyoman 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheVanguard.Org

[edit]

This article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting of the article creator (checkuser), I relisted the nomination.--WinHunter (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The original nom statement) The page is primarily promoting and advertising and is almost completely unverifiable. DoctorSqueak 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Though I think references and POV can be easily fixed, and related pages shouldn't be deleted. the notability is questionable. Also less than 10,000 hits on google, which in my opinion is a good test for a website, doesn't help the notability situation. --Wildnox 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn after article rewritten. --Nlu (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and Rosemary Grant

[edit]

As written, does not assert sufficient notability. Delete as written. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I expanded the article. They are both notable. They won a major prize, the Balzan Prize for Population Biology. They were the subject of a book which won a Pulitzer Prize. And of course, they have done notable scientific work about the evolution of finches. It is rarely worthwhile to nominate an academic for deletion on the grounds of not being notable enough. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the revisions to the article by TruthbringerToronto. Even before those edits I would have disagreed with the assertion put forward by the nominator - the {{stub}} template was an adequate means of addressing the apparent problem. Agent 86 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Xperience

[edit]

Nothing in the article establishes this as a pay-per-view or other particularly notable event. As it stands, it looks like it's simply the results for a live wrestling show. Dsreyn 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMAX

[edit]

Spam, PRODed but contested by article creator. Non-notable entity, top Googles are for Wikipedia articles and unrelated sites. Rife with neologisms and crypto-scientific terms trying to disguise the fact that this is just one guy's pet theory. Article on Scott Sonnon also nominated, immediately below. Herostratus 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or redirect to Scott Sonnon, if that article survives the AfD. Dsreyn 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this does not meet WP:CORP, though a redirect to Scott Sonnon might be a workable solution as well.--Isotope23 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fine to redirect to Scott Sonnon as a workable solution as well. However, initial comments of this being spam are just unfounded, as are claims of "neologisms" and "crytpo-scientific" terms. Herostratus has made his way to everything regarding this guy, and it's starting to sound like a personal agenda. Sonnon's a Ph.D. in Health and Physical Education, a former USA national martial arts team coach in Sambo who has been featured even on the cover of World of Martial Arts Magazine (May 1999), is a frequent presenter for the National Strength Coaches Association, and noted author in his field. Perhaps he ain't recognized by the masses like burlesque shows like Tony Little and Richard Simmons, but he is recognized in the professional sports field and has signed testimonials on his website [37]] from notable athletes like Egan Inoue 2x world raquetball champion, Holly Rustick, Ms. Fitness Hawaii, Andrei Arlovski, UFC Heavyweight Champion, SSG. Matthew Larsen, USA ARMY Combatives School, and so on. I think that qualifies the guy to use scientific terms, or even contribute new jargon to his field. --B-ham 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G.--Peta 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with that guy. Kappa 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, you already "voted" above; it has already be pointed out to you elsewhere that this is considered bad AfD etiquette. Please read the sections "AfD etiquette" and "How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette" on WP:AFD. In any case, the entry for Dragon Door Publications that has "never been contested" has only existed for seven hours, so it's a bit misleading to make that statement. However, it is now also listed in AfD, since it's a recreation of a previously deleted entry under a new name. Dsreyn 03:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sonnon

[edit]

Spam, vanity, cruft. Gym owner. Herostratus 15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. could tone down the business references but his revival of the ancient club with modern American engineering and sport science is being discussed on many strength and conditioning sites and is likely to meet this criteria (under engineers, professions): "... professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.181.251.10 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. There's nothing spam or vain about this article. If you hope to have it deleted, you'll need to demonstrate those claims, which you obviously cannot successfully do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-ham (talk • contribs)
Comment. From WP:AFD: Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. Dsreyn 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know how sales volume are determined, but he's a presenter for the National Strength Coaches Association, which is the most prestigious fitness organization in the States. He's definitely not "Tony Little", but for professional athletes in many sports (such as Egan Inoue, 2X World Racquetball Champion, Andrei Arlovski, UFC Heavweight Champion, Holly Rustick, Ms. Fitness Hawaii, and Todd Milhoan, USA Olympic Greco-Roman Team), he's the go to guy. B-ham 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and edit. He was a silver medallist at the World University Games (in a sport I never knew existed) so he seems at least marginally OK against WP:BIO for athletes. There's an article about his Prasara method that's nominated above. I'd say delete the nn method and edit out any promotion of his business interests, but keep an article on the guy.--Mereda 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough, although I agree the tone of the article could use some work. Dsreyn 16:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You have "voted" keep three times now. Please stop trying to stuff the ballot box. Dsreyn 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is a talk box, not a ballot box... and this is not a numerical vote... but for future reference, it is considered bad wikietiquette to say keep or delete multiple times and just generally makes life harder for the closing admins.--Isotope23 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source your claim? I looked around a bit - and was unable to find much related to the US National Team at all. I also tried to verify the 1995 Pan American win, but individual Pan American results don't seem to be webified. If you could provide sources for some of the results mentioned in the first paragraph, as well as the world record in the 4th paragraph, then I would probably vote to keep. To show you why good sources are invaluable - this page [39] says Sonnon won the Pan American games in 1994. We can prove thats a typo, since the games were in 1995. My point is, without sources, we cannot be sure which of the statements are accurate and which are not.
  • Keep could probably stand some cleanup... but he appears to be meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article didn't say Pan-American Games, it reads Pan-American Sambo Championships which are held annually [40] - another value of a better source. As far as the national team, there are several newpaper clippings here (see Post-2005, images 1, 3, 27), which state that he was certainly on the US national team and a champion. [41] --B-ham 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, international athlete, author, and interviewed in multiple media. Kappa 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basement poll

[edit]

This is an obvious advertisement, written by the poll's author trying to pimp his website. He is also spamming all the sports message boards touting his Wikipedia article. FSULongM 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Starz

[edit]

Previously nominated here, on the grounds of non-notability. That nom was closed early to take this over to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. There are, however, non-copyvio versions in the history, which means this isn't deletable on copyright grounds, so I'm bringing it back over here. --RobthTalk 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Pitman

[edit]

Non-notable figure with only 637 Google hits. His "official" Australian web site is inaccessible, and the page says as much. The text that is up borders on incoherent. Maybe not vanity, but not notable either. --BDD 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Montoya

[edit]

Album cover artist? I don't think sufficiently notable at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - Cover artist for well known band seems notable enough. --Wildnox 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I dont think "cover artist for well known band" meets WP:BIO. However, the article states that he has been recognised by a magazine that specialises in "low-brow art" so he may be notable within his field, though I dont think a sufficient case is made for that in the article. Hornplease 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep normally, I would have gone for delete: 29 unique out of 65 Ghits for "Lance Montoya", some of which relate to Primus, car racing, and some to Chaffey College, none of which are of any interest for establishing notability. There is apparently also a baseball player of the same name. However, his having drawn 4 covers of albums for the same band which have been certified gold or platinum, if verifiable, would seem to make him notable enough.Ohconfucius 06:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge cover artist for well-known band. Kappa 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. james(talk) 12:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo-Dachi

[edit]

nn anime--P633 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediwar

[edit]

Non notable browser game, fails WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. Peephole 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prasara Body-Flow

[edit]

Duplicate of the original entry for Prasara, essentially an advertisement for Scott Sonnon coupled with some original research. Dsreyn 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From WP:AFD: Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. Dsreyn 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Patch Boys

[edit]

Totally non-notable unofficial fan-based organisation. Speedy tags and prod were removed by not-the-creator. AFD'ing so the tags can't be removed. Please speedy delete this so it won't get re-created for the fourth time. zzuuzz (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 226 forum users not noteable enough. Delete per nom. User:Yy-bo 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Other football supporter groups, including another from Toronto have had no issues with posting club information on wikipedia.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.106.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Worth noting that we are talking about a supporters group for a completely new soccer franchise that is still about 8 months away from their first home game here. I would argue that 226 forum users is notable in this particular context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.100.60.173 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7, db-club. And padlock it against re-creation this time. wikipediatrix 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable fan site. IrishGuy talk 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability for this club has been proven.--Isotope23 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, small fan group, also advertising ("canvasing locally to increase our own numbers"). Punkmorten 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above request for deletion - no advertising done - Statement made as to activities of the group - canvasing locally would describe a physical activity in the physical area of the group not wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.99.95 (talk • contribs) .
  • This is notable as a direct reference to the Toronto Football Club which is also an accepted enty in wiki. If a franchise that has not played its first game is notable then a fan group with numbers in the 100's before a player is even drafted is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.99.95 (talk • contribs) . (again)
  • I find it hard to understand why one Toronto FC supporters group is allowed to keep its page, but not the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.11.68 (talk • contribs) .
    • What are you talking about? Punkmorten 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The U-Sector's wiki page was deleted (without warning), while the Red Patch Boys' page still stands. Note that U-Sector has existed since 2000 and has an independent reference on the Toronto FC page verifying its existence, while the Red Patch Boys currently exist as a web entity only, and only since May 11th of this year.
  • I do not understand, when there are two reasonably large organized/organizing fan clubs (for a team that will not play for another 8 months), that they should not have their entries. Supporters clubs for established teams with unknown membership (e.g. Empire Supporters Club) have their own pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldtimer7 (talk • contribs) .
  • It should be noted at the owners of the team, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment have been keeping up communication with the two supporter's groups. If one of the largest sports corporations in Canada wants to keep in contact with them, they deserve to have a brief mention in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldtimer7 (talk • contribs) . (again)
  • Strong Keep, I can do a little editing for these guys so they can keep their entry. It's a legit fan fan group for a legit soccer/football club. I see no reason to delete. Minfo 04:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul Beirne, the GM of TFC posts there so its not exactly 'unknown' Soccer fan 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, TFC is in active communication with this group, and, as stated, a support group in the hundreds is definitely large enough for a team that has yet to play --Trump 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rome total war online clans

[edit]

Vanity/advertising for non-notable "gaming clans". DarthBinky 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bitwiser Labs

[edit]

software company advert; NPOV tag removed by author. -Steve Sanbeg 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as a copy and paste from the (copyrighted) contents of a web log, which serves as nothing more than a platform for the external link to that web log. That the same editor placed this same content on xyr user page, on xyr talk page, and in one of our official policy pages indicates that this was not even an attempt to write an encyclopaedia article. Criteria # G3, # A3, and # A8. Uncle G 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best movie critique

[edit]

advert /vandalism; author also put some if this in wikipedia policy pages. -Steve Sanbeg 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetology

[edit]

neologism; WP is not a dictionary. Akradecki 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spoken word org. spoken word has many ambigious links on WP and needs more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.36 (talk • contribs)

neologism removed

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byron De Lear

[edit]

non-notable third party candidate, reads like a campaign ad. -Steve Sanbeg 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not-Notable is a matter of personal opinion as is your subjective view on the content.. This should not be grounds for deletion.. I'm sure Byron can provide evidence for any questions you might have...

I apologise for not following the wiki format. I'll definately get into looking at that.. this is my first wiki article.. I find this whole things very interesting.. I'll work on making the article more wikiable..

Thanks,

User:iroessle

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parkway Road Pentecostal Church

[edit]

No assertion of notability, nondescript congregation whose only claim to fame is that a local talk-radio DJ (John Counsell) used to preach there. I'm not even sure Counsell himself is notable. wikipediatrix 17:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merging does not require afd, so if consensus on relevant article talk pages exists to merge go ahead. It should also be noted that 'delete and merge' is not a valid !vote. Merge means article history is kept, with a redirect left in place. Petros471 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. Reserves

[edit]

A discussion has started on WikiProject Football concerning articles for English Reserves teams. Unlike in Spain, English reserves teams don't play in the main league so aren't themselves a notable football team. It is proposed English reserve teams articles are deleted and the information in them is summarised and merged into the main article e.g. Liverpool F.C. SenorKristobbal 17:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found here.

IMPORTANT Could all people posting read here as several people with vested interest in the article haven't said so. Also note how this is not a vote SenorKristobbal 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT, it should be noted that SenorKristobbal is a supporter of Everton F.C., who are the local, and often bitter, rivals of Liverpool F.C.. aLii 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case. As said already I have contributed to Liverpool F.C. talk about how to get it featured. If an Everton F.C. reserves page was made I'd be doing the exact same thing. This is nothing to do with liking/not liking Liverpool this is about notability and whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. SenorKristobbal 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons described above. SenorKristobbal 17:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into Liverpool F.C. --Angelo 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merging would only return a mass of information back to the article it was moved out of because that article is already too long. This article was primarily created as a place to put information on the subject of Liverpool F.C. which was considered notable/important (i.e. the list of the Reserve Squad, the trophies that the reserve team has won, where the reserve team plays and so on). However, it has to be recognised that the main Liverpool article is too long, and we simply can't cram everything on there. That is why seperate articles as in e.g. the history article have been created. It may or may not be said that the players in question are not notable; this is a seperate debate, but should affect only individual articles on those players.
    • This article allows for the retention of useful, verifiable and encyclopedic information, whilst not making the main Liverpool article so long that nobody can get to the end. We have been told to remove such information in previous FA reviews.
    • I would also like to make a point purely based upon the notability of a given team; Liverpool reserves participate in the Liverpool Senior Cup. This trophy is competed for entirely by teams within Level 1-10 of the English league system (the levels at which teams are deemed inherantly notable), with the 3 exceptions of the Liverpool, Everton and Tranmere Rovers reserves. I therefore would argue that there is a case for notability as a many time winner of this competition, which may well be deemed of minor importance to some people, but does still involve notable teams.
I would honestly like to ask what will be gained from this removal of useful information, citing the old cliche that wikipedia is not paper, and pointing out that the Reserves system is an important part of any successful team. Robotforaday 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's most certainly not my only point of reasoning, as you can see. I do believe this information is useful, verifiable and notable. You could still make the case that it should be moved back into the Liverpool F.C. article- but as that article is being drastically reduced under advice, I don't think that all of the pertinent information from this article would remain were it to be merged. And what would wikipedia gain from the loss of information about an important element of Liverpool F.C.? This is a useful place to go from the main article for further information, just as the History of Liverpool F.C. and the article on Anfield are. They are places to put useful information that won't bloat the article out of all control. Robotforaday 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently worked on getting Everton F.C. featured and it had a reserves team list. More than one person told me to remove this list as the players were not notable according to WP:BIO. They didn't say start a new article for them and they won't have specifically said that for Liverpool reserves either. If reserves players don't qualify for notability by playing for a reserves team, then their team isn't notable either. I think it deserves a section in the article but when peer reviewed people who know what they are talking about say it doesn't so I accepted it.SenorKristobbal 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-league teams are teams in their own right. Liverpool Reserves are not as they are part of Liverpool F.C.
sure but they still have a history.Geni 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a combination of FA Premier Reserve League and Central League (football), except for the squad list, which appears to be crystal ball material judging by the description. Oldelpaso 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is useful information in the article, and only judging by the size of it, I'd call out keep, but reading through it more carefully, much of the information is superfluous, for example the last paragraph in the intro talking about famous players, however most famous players of today has played in a reserve team somewhere, most likely in the club where they became famous. The third paragraph of the intro should be merged with a culture or supporter section of the main article. The honours and the two first paragraphs of the intro can easily be merged into a section in the main article. So my vote is merge. – Elisson • Talk 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst taking your points on board, this article has showed a steady rate of growth since its creation, and I would say has the potential for further additions, e.g. on the history of the reserve team (as I see has been suggested by others in the talk in wikiproject football). I would hope that rather than seperate out the information about this important aspect of Liverpool F.C., it could be left together, and allowed to develop more. Right now it might be considered a stub, but from stubs, extensive articles grow. Robotforaday 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The nominator is disingenuous in his implication that any consensus has been reached about articles of this type. There has been a discussion for the past two days at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Reserves teams, where I feel the argument was being won over the notability of the Liverpool FC Reserve team. I believe that this nomination is a vindictive attempt to allow majority rule to get the upper hand over common sense. Please see comments below.. aLii 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.

  • If this article is deleted or merged where will the info go ? The Liverpool F.C. article is already overloaded and exceeds the recommended article size. Many articles on football clubs have become virtually unreadable because of their lenghth. Rather then delete this article similar articles should be started on the reserve teams of other Premiership teams to help keep article size down. Greater use should be made of Category:Liverpool F.C. and other club categories and we should avoid putting everything about a particular club in one single article.
  • Liverpool F.C. Reserves have won more trophies then most non-league clubs and several Premiership clubs, so how can anybody claim they are not worthy of article. Djln--Djln 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Liverpool Reserves are more notweorthy than some Premiership clubs?SenorKristobbal 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of trophies won, yes. They have won more trophies then most Premiership sides. You have failed to answer my main point about article size. Also I see from your user page that you are an Evertonian. This explains a lot and you have the nerve to challenge other peoples objectivity. Djln--Djln 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C. and Manchester City F.C. for examples of how to cut down article size (all featured). None have reserve team articles. Winning trophies doesn't make you notable. My school team back in the day won a trophy. They don't have a wikipedia article though. Being an Evertonian is irrelevant I'd be doing this if an Everton Reserves article surfaced. Look at the Liverpool F.C. talk page I've actually tried to help in the past. SenorKristobbal 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liverpool F.C. Reserves are obviously no-where near the notability of any Premiership team, however that in itself does not make the team non-notable. I have not yet seen one good argument from you on this point, and the revelation (for me) that you are actually an Evertonian makes this deletion attempt look even more vindictive than I initially thought! aLii 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the above articles exceed article size. The Arsenal one is well over. So whats your point ? No offense but maybe if your school won as many trophies as Liverpool Reserves someone would write about them. By your own admission they only won one. Comparing Liverpool Reserves to a school team is ridiculous. I would favour articles on all Premiership reserve teams, even Evertons. PS Removing tally not very democratic. It was useful as quick reference to see how discussion was going. Djln --Djln 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djln - you aren't helping I'm afraid.
  • SenorKristobbal - various of the players quite obviously pass WP:BIO, but anyway that is irrelevent for judging whether or not a team is notable. WikiProject Football decided that any team down to Level-10 of the English league system is inherently notable. No player below level-5 or so will pass WP:BIO however, as the lower levels are not professional. This is exactly the kind of dumb circular arguing that we should have settled before this nomination for deletion. aLii 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll apologise here there does seem to be as you say a lot of "dumb circular arguing" and it has caused me to word things wrongly in that instance. The vast majority of the players fail WP:Bio like Stephen Wynne of Everton reserves looks set to be deleted. One suggestion I would make would be a category of reserves players that pass WP:Bio and a category of Liverpool players past and present that have been in the reserves. You probably know you can put text at the top of category pages and a watered down version of the article could work. Racecourse Ground wikilinked effectively gives ground location and capacity. Link to Liverpool main page gives chairman and as you have a staff list there also gives the manager. SenorKristobbal 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, good, some constructive suggestions. The idea for a category of former reserves is an interesting one, and perhaps worth pursuing. A category for current reserves makes little sense as my reading of the squad gives only five notable players, and therefore perhaps only five articles will remain of the current twenty-two. Even if they don't deserve articles, which they probably don't, then I still don't see why their names cannot be listed.
  • The point that the information could be written more succintly is also true, but so is the point that it could be expanded. While categories can be useful, I personally would favour prose if possible. Categories always seem so regimented and dry to me. They aren't fun to read and it can be tough to pick out the highlights and important figures. At least we are moving forward :) aLii 00:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Evertonian friend is avoiding argument about article size. For me the notablity point is a non-starter. There are numerous articles on football clubs in Wikipedia who have been less successful then Liverpool F.C. Reserves. The fact that people have written the article and that others chose to expand it is proof that it is worth keeping. The main Liverpool F.C. article is just too long and this article serves a purpose in helping reduce article size. I can understand your reservations to a point regarding Manchester United F.C. Reserves as it is just a few lines. However people have actually spent time working on this one. I have counted at least seven different editors who have contributed, none of whom challenged the articles credibilty. Djln--Djln 00:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Reasons this article should be kept:
  1. It allows the main Liverpool F.C. article to be more streamlined in the same was as for example History of Liverpool Football Club. It allows this secondary list of players to be kept somewhere more suitable.
  2. The players Salif Diao, David Martin and Besian Idrizaj pass the notability criteria on WP:BIO, but are not members of the main Liverpool squad. Deleting this page causes unnecessary orphaning of these articles.
  3. "Merge" arguments only make sense if there is a minimal amount of information about the subject. This article is a stub, but much more could and given time would be written about it. There are many famous people in football that have been associated with Liverpool Reserves, but never made it to the full team, for example Paul Jewell.
  4. The Reserve team commands regular press attention. Example.
  5. The youth team occasionally commands press attention. Example.
  6. My reading of Wikipedia:Notability would indicate that this article is about a notable subject.
  7. There are no good reasons to delete it.
Arguments for deletion seem to amount to only:
  1. The players are not noteworthy.
    • Salif Diao has played in the FIFA World Cup. Others have had careers at lesser professional clubs and so pass WP:BIO, and most of the rest have received national press and television coverage by winning the 2006 FA Youth Cup.
  2. The information can be readily summised in two or three paragraphs.
    • Being a stub should not make something liable for deletion. There is plenty more information about the subject, but as yet no-one has written it down. The article as it stands has more detail than was deemed appropriate for the main Liverpool F.C. article, so merging it back doesn't solve the original problem, unless information is culled.
  3. "Liverpool FC Reserves" are not a different club to "Liverpool FC".
    • No-one ever claimed that they were, and this is not a reason to delete the article. They are however a seperate team, that play at a seperate ground, in seperate competitions, with a seperate manager and a seperate Honours list etc.

I believe that this vote was instigated in bad faith, and it will be a very sad indictment of Wikipedia if it allowed to pass unchallenged by a majority of neutral observers, rather than me being out-voted by the very people that I was engaged in discussion with. This vote did not need to happen so soon.

aLii 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also: User:Robotforaday/Notability of Reserve teams Robotforaday 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the two or three lead paragraphs are useful information that could be merged into Liverpool F.C., but a reserve team does not deserve a separate article in its own right. Qwghlm 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more notable than a lot of the things on wikipedia, reserves teams are coupled with their clubs and therefore in some respects shae some of the notability, we have to keep this standardized, and in some countries they compete as seperate clubs, and it would be wrong to merge these teams. Also it would only serve to add somewhat irrelavant information to the main club article. Philc TECI 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* We can't keep reserves teams standardised throughout Europe as they aren't standard!...The Spanish league is run completely differently to the English reserves wise. SenorKristobbal 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Qwghlm, and merge any worthwhile info into Liverpool F.C.. At best this deserves mention within it's parent club's article. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per NeoChaosX. TJ Spyke 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I prefer not to judge the notability of the Reserve teams here at this time and instead give WikiProject:Football the chance to complete discussion and come up with a plan on how to deal with these articles.-- danntm T C 02:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notable enough for a separate article, not notable enough to clutter the main article with more than a paragraph or so. Kappa 06:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reserve teams in England are not notable, any info should be merged into the article on the main team. They are not a seperate entity as players are not registered seperately from the first team. Catchpole 09:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Liverpool F.C. Reserves regularly get attendances in the thousands, they receive a signifcant amount of reportage in the local and national press (certainly enough to meet any WP:CORP requirements). A google search also reveals a large and loyal following who put up match reports, etc. They compete in (and win) competitions in their own right, and in some of these competitions play against the first teams of clubs that we have deemed notable. Add to this that they are mentioned in various articles. Add to this that Liverpool reserves are referenced in other articles as a notable entity having a significant effect on that article. (e.g. New Bucks Head, St Helens Town FC (a 'notable team' according to WP guidelines who suffered their biggest ever loss against Liverpool Reserves, 8-1)). In short, if any other team met these requirements, people would not be pushing for deletion. I strongly believe that Liverpool F.C. Reserves, while obviously a part of Liverpool F.C., are an important part in their own right, and have their own history of success and own story to tell. If that was just merged into a couple of sentences in the main article, the potential of having that information on wikipedia would be lost. In short, Liverpool Reserves are notable, and I have not yet heard any convincing argument otherwise. Robotforaday 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Some players deserve pages but they can be listed on main article. Reserves deserve no more than 5/6 lines on the main article (if that). As per the arguement that they attract 100s of fans, none of those fans follow the reserves exclusively, they will all support the first team Dodge 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gone into the arguments for keeping this article in more depth at User:Robotforaday/Notability of Reserve teams. Although I have already tried to make my opinions clear during this debate, please go and read what I have to say there. Robotforaday 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Information should be in main article.HornetMike 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per aLii. Eixo 17:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move any relevant info into the main article. - Pal 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Article Should Now Be Kept And Tag Removed

[edit]

I think this debate has demonstrated that their is enough support to justify keeping the article. No sound or objective argument has been constructed in favour of deletion. Djln--Djln 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not one decent argument has been made to delete article. I have just as much a right to express my opinion as you did by nominating article for deletion in first place. Djln--Djln 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this article

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW Bowl

[edit]

Non-notable episode of WWE RAW. Was proposed for deletion (and endorsed) but has had template removed, hence the need for AfD. Oakster (Talk) 17:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Leonardo Da Vinci

[edit]

oddly worded advert for something; author removed a db-test tag. -Steve Sanbeg 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. Academy

[edit]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how come none of the people interested in keeping the article have done anything to improve it or even include the sources brought up during this afd? You're supposed to edit the article to confer notability, the references are not helpful for the encyclopedia if they're only linked to in the Wikipedia namespace. - Bobet 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. As pointed out below, 'delete and merge' is not a valid option. I have taken those !votes to be merge. On having done this, there is no consensus to delete. However, people who !voted that way clearly don't want the article to be kept in its current state. Hence the redirect, which preserves what history there is. Incidentally I don't think it has all been merged in, at least I can't find it in the main Manchester United F.C. article- so go ahead and do so if desired. Petros471 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. Reserves

[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. Feel free to recreate with sources — four sources is not nearly enough for such a lenghty article, and it has been over a year now since it has been authored. El_C 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism in various countries

[edit]

Filled with original research and completely devoid of sources or references. The topic is certainly encyclopedic, and I have no objections to an article on this subject, but the article as it stands todays is simply not acceptable. My fond hope is that this article will get cleaned up sufficiently; I will happily change my opinion to "keep" were that to occur. EngineerScotty 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This article is deeply confused, comprises almost entirely of original research and is basically unsalvagable. Requests have been issued on the talk page for clarification and improvement for some time - to no avail. I can't see a way out of this other than to delete. Just to reiterate one of the main problems - objecting to a certain policy or act by the US government does not make it "anti-Americanism". The expression itself is greatly disputed and this isn't explained on the article at all, certain objections to policy are just assumed to be "anti-Americanism". See this page: Opposition to Fidel Castro, Note that it isn't "Anti-Cubanism". Anyway, see this [47] for further discussion on the deletion. I also note that there have been calls to delete this article as nonsense on the talk page dating back to January 2006. --Zleitzen 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vague and weepy, this article is composed of much original research. It would be difficult to make an article on this topic fit NPOV guidelines, (both sensationalism and geographical/national bias are major issues) and nearly impossible using the current one as source material. If kept, please edit with a chainsaw.--65.16.61.35 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are a few sources, and the topic is encyclopaedic enough. That said, I'm not sure a chainsaw is sufficient for the editing it needs - does anyone have some sort of particle weapon? WilyD 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep - this article has a lot of sourcing, some good images and some very informative information, this article is needed to supplement the anti-americanism article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogsprog (talk • contribs)
    • This article has four sourced statements, and only one that refers to "anti-Americanism", by Bernard-Henri Levy. And his use of the vague term is not expanded at all in the article. The basis of the article is just wrong and POV from the start, tarring dissent, protest and objection to certain policies of a particular US government with the broad brush of "anti-Americanism" is original research. --Zleitzen 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ill-defined and unencyclopedic. Anything of use could be moved to the anti-Americanism article.--Peta 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: first of all, Bernard-Henri Lecy does not own the rights to the phrase "anti-Americanism", he only thinks he does. Secondly, I think that nominating an article which is poorly written and sourced in spite of the fact that you believe that the subject is notable and that it is not inherently POV is not what AfD is for. It may be the case that many articles are cleaned up when they come to AfD, but if people start AfDing things just to clean them up, we will have an even worse case of AfD-bloat than we already do. Hornplease 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If they had Wikipedia:Articles for Probation or similar (wherein an article gets put on an "interested editors shall clean this up or the article shall die" list), I would have gone there instead. My nearest approximation to that policy is the aformentioned AfD threat posted on the talk page quite some time back; virtually no improvements to the article have occurred since then. AfD was only used as a last resort. With regard to {{sofixit}}; I considered ways to do so, but my improvements would have been carried out with an axe. Given the controversial and emotional nature of the subject, I figured that a wider forum to discuss the article was more appropriate. --EngineerScotty 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the baby, remove the bathwater with the "edit" button, you don't need a particle weapon. Kappa 06:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem is that people have been calling for a clean up since 2005 and this hasn't happened. The page has just got even worse. I don't believe the concept of the page itself salvagable. It's a fallacy that can only lead to unencyclopedic content. The Bathwater stinks because the baby was stillborn!--Zleitzen 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. If someone wants something cleaned, they can clean it. This article needs cleaning is not a criterion for deletion. Articles shouldn't be brought to AfD just because they're dirty. WilyD 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No, no. I mean that the title of the article itself is flawed - it can only create a page like this. Am I not making myself clear here? The concept of "Anti-Americanism in various countries" itself is a fallacy. I guarantee that this page is unworkable.--Zleitzen 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've made that point clear there, but it's false on the face of it. There are stacks of great articles that are way harder to write than this. To be frank, writing this article and doing a half-decent job of it should be easier than pissing in the shower. It'd be foolish to bet it's unworkable even if you were offered dollars to dimes. It's an encyclopaedic topic that should (I haven't really looked) have tons of great references all over the flippin' place. WilyD 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'd find it harder than you think to write this article. The title would need to change for a start. To label an act "anti-American" is almost invariably a POV accusation unproved and likely disputed by the subject. So it would need to be "allegations of anti-Americanism" for starters. It is an inherently subjective and POV term see:[48] which states "it only demeans things further to pre-stigmatise all debate with the mark of "anti-American". I think Chomsky had it right when he said "A term like “anti-American” is “a pretty standard propaganda triumph, actually. Like, go to Italy and try using the word ‘anti-Italianism,’ call somebody there ‘anti-Italian’ and just see what happens—they’d crack up in ridicule. But here [in the US] those totalitarian values really do mean something to people….” Note that he's talking about the terms use in the US. There is scant evidence of the term having any currency outside the US. The occasional quote here and there in the UK, our Bernard Henri Levy quote and so on. That's about it. Beyond that nothing. To use sources in the US labelling sentiments of other nations "anti-American" as fact is inherently POV, unencyclopedic and potentially offensive. --Zleitzen 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This simply isn't true. Anti-American may be a POV-accusation (although in many cases, I'm sure it's undisputed) - but as long as its sourced, the article isn't POV. This kind of thing is already well debated in a thousand other articles that have the same difficulties. Renaming to allegations is unneeded - see WP:NAME for instance, one how to name articles. It's encyclopaedic as shit. There are thousands of articles with POV content or titles that still pass WP:NPOV, see Armenian Genocide. And potentially offensive is completely irrelevent. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a hugWilyD 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You say that as long as its sourced, the article isn't POV. Sourced to what? Give examples. And you say that "potentially offensive" is irrelevant. How about an article that states an allegation as fact and uses original research to assert this. That is potentially offensive and very relevant. I certainly know about WP:NAME, I've named enough articles in my time, and been involved in enough articles of this nature to know how to deal with this kind of issue. Hence my calls for deletion.--Zleitzen 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If this article survives, what'll happen is this. I'll strip the article down to the one verifiable source - Bernard Henri Levy, and his allegation of "anti-Americanism" in France. And then, in time, other users will come along with their original research again, Spain is "anti-American" because of 2+2, Brazil is "anti-American" because of 2+2 etc. Without any reference to the term itself. It's an invite to engage in original research. And the article will be back where it is now. I challenge anyone to create a NPOV page on "Anti-Americanism in various countries" given that the title itself implies it is a fact. Not a claim made by partisans.--Zleitzen 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, per EngineerScotty. Remove original research, do not delete. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very shallow content, maybe good for TV. The whole topic cannot be condensed into single article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per complete lack of on-point WP:RS, therefore WP:OR by default, encyclopedic or not. You can't just edit out the OR if there are no sources, i.e. nothing but OR. Sandstein 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moving Content, in the style of news, is not encyclopedic. Especially actual events (not being hstorically verifyable events). W not a webhosting provider. User:Yy-bo 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this lack sources, and conflicts with WP:NOR. We already have Anti-Americanism, and any properly sourced material can go there. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. An encylopedia should be discussing the term anti-Americanism, the disputes surrounding it etc. And we do that in the Anti-Americanism article. We shouldn't be taking that term, applying our own definition of it and then listing a whole load of incidents that we believe are "anti-American". That is the definition of original research. 99% of the material on this page is exactly that. --Zleitzen 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason this article was created was to explain anti-americanism in individual countries, to save anti-americanism for explanation of the term in general, there may be some original research, but it seems that zleitzen doesn't like this article as it lists actual examples of anti americanism, I suspect he is "anti-anti-americanism!" --Frogsprog 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What examples of "anti-Americanism" are there in the article now? There's only one. Take Cuba, I see objections to US policy on the page but no "anti-Americanism". I should know about that topic at least, I wrote the Cuba-United States relations article in full. By the way, you've now voted twice. (vote subsequently removed) --Zleitzen 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh sorry i meant to reply to the last ---Frogsprog 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (vote subsequently removed)[reply]
Where would these sources come from, and what kind of things would they say?--Zleitzen 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took me 2 minutes to find this: "Yongsan ("Dragon Hill") [is] a symbol of foreign occupation for many Koreans. Consequently, the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests. South Korean riot police are stationed permanently outside the base." PizzaMargherita 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry about the lengthy response) OK, so that is the Washington Post, obviously a US source, describing a protest as "anti-American". That's an individual interpretation of another groups actions. If you were to ask the protesting Koreans about their protest I imagine they wouldn't tell you it was "anti-American", they'd tell you about foreign occupation and the symbolism of the hill. If they did claim that yes, "We are doing this because we are anti-American", then fair enough. But they're not.
Let me give you a hypothetical example of the problem here. We have a page called Evil on wikipedia, some Christians believe that abortion is evil. Do we have a page called Evil in various countries listing the various countries where abortion is practiced? No. Because evil is an inherently subjective and disputed term and to do so would be to assume that abortion was "evil". We could source our hypothetical page with endless sources from Christian groups, but it still wouldn't help. "Anti-Americanism" is exactly the same thing, it is an inherently subjective observation made by outsiders.
There is no evidence that the protest in Korea was "anti-American" - but the Washington Post applies that term to it. We're not the Washington Post - we're neutral, simply reporting uses of the term. Therefore we can't place it on this page stating "the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests" and stay within NPOV. We'd have to say something along the lines of "the protests at Yongsan have been cited by the Washington Post as evidence of anti-Americanism". Essentially an allegation against the protestors. That is why the title of this page is wrong from the start, because it already assumes that such actions are "anti-American" and adopts the voice of outlets such as the Washington Post, not the voices of the subjects themselves (in this case the protestors).
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, but the bottom line is some people who protest US foreign policy object to it being labelled anti-Americanism. The term is disputed and not NPOV.--Zleitzen 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term is overloaded; meaning both "against the policies of the US" and "against the US itself". That is one issue with the title. Many US administrations, including (especially!) the current one, eagerly promote this little bit of obfuscation--this enables them to label domestic critics as disloyal (if not outright traitorous) and foreign critics as hostile (if not outright enemies). If the article is to be kept and retain "Anti-American" in the title, it ought to discuss--at the top--the different meanings of the term, and who uses them and why. With sources, obviously. --EngineerScotty 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea in this case is to portray the protests are part of some kind of irrational "anti-American" phenomenon. Without needing to discuss the actual particular grievances of the protestors themselves. In a way it is a smear job and is highly disputable. --Zleitzen 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are making yourself quite clear, but you seem to deny that the Washington Post (the one resource I found in 2 minutes) is a reliable source—which "sources from Christian groups" would probably be not, by the way. You, as an editor, are not in a position to question reliable sources. It would be perfectly acceptable to write "the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests" and reference the article. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. PizzaMargherita 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post doesn't own the term. As the Guardian, Noam Chomsky and even our own article Anti-American argues. It's a subjective label, and the definition is not universally agreed. It is actually POV for us to write "the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests", because it is an allegation by the Washington Post, not a universally agreed truism. We are not the Washington Post.--Zleitzen 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional example, the Washington Post describes Iran as "the senior partner of this axis of evil." here [49]. Should we should add the sentence "Iran is the senior partner of an axis of evil" to various pages and reference the article? Based on your reliable source criteria? It would reach your threshold for inclusion as verifiable. --Zleitzen 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my criterion, it's Wikipedia's. And there is a difference between an op-ed and a news report. PizzaMargherita 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
News reports can biased, you know. What you quote isn't wikipedia's criterion. If it was, we could write "the iraq war was an unpopular war"[50] (yahoo news), [51](cnn), "Fascism is the new buzzword for republicans" [52](cnn) etc etc. A subjective and disputed term cannot be applied as fact without attribution no matter who uses it. Likewise the word "terrorist" cannot be used without attributing who is making the claim - see the Osama Bin Laden page which at no point describes him as "a terrorist" though he is described in that fashion in every newspaper without fail. Our article follows that policy for a reason, we are not parroting newspapers, we're an encylopedia. So likewise we can't call our Korean's "anti-American" without attributing who has made the allegation. That is wikipedia policy.--Zleitzen 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful there with that example. Those words are actually in an op-ed written by Charles Krauthammer, a well-known right-wing (and staunchly pro-Israel) political commentator, one who routinely rattles the sabre for U.S.. military action in the Islamic world, and is openly hostile to Iran. While Krauthammer is entitled to his views, it would be incorrect to attribute them to the Washington Post simply because they ran an editorial he wrote; it is common practice for newspapers (at least in the US) to publish outside editorials representing a wide variety of viewpoints. If the passage were in an unsigned editorial penned by the Post's editorial staff, or in a news item published by the paper, that would be a different matter. --EngineerScotty 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See reply above.--Zleitzen 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, and not notable sorry but I researched this one and didn't find much. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify to the referenced points only then build back up using referenced statements only. Anti-Americanism is a fairly well estabished article that has been happily around for three years detailing a real sentiment. This article aims to explore how that sentiment is expressed around the world, and that's a good goal. However the fact an article of this length only appears to have six references (yes, I tried to count them) worries me. All non-referenced information should be removed, and the article should then be built again based upon solid references. The issue of NPOV becomes moot once we properly reference these events and any criticism of them, and follow best practice when writing the article. It should be noted that this will be almost the same as deleting, given the significant reduction in article size LinaMishima 23:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as unreferenced material We are free to remove unreferenced material from articles without any discussion, ahnks to WP:VERIFY. Most of the references I noted earlier did not actually support the article itself, and so instead we would be left with "In the Second World War hundreds of thousands of American troops were stationed in Australia, introducing new products and ideas to the isolated British dominion. The relatively more affluent and carefree nature ('Over-sexed, over-paid and over here') of the Americans jarred with the sensibilities of some Australians[1]. There were some demonstrations marking President Bush's state visit to Britain, although The Guardian[2] reported that the vast majority of British people supported the visit." (external links not copied, but do support). Whilst Anti-American is clearly a real, supported and definable term, this article is actually quite laughably under-referenced. Remove as per the powers of WP:VERIFY: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". This is not to say however that I object to the article's concept - just do it right, with references LinaMishima 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • additional Whilst deleting for a lack of references is a bad thing if the article or offending content is new, the talk page gained a comment on the 24 December 2005 (UTC) about this, when the {{OR}} tag was added. I'm going to contact the editor that appears to be the original author to let him know about the problems with the article. He'll still have a few days, or could userfy and fix Original author was an IP user now inactive from that IP, and there has been no persistant long-term editors over the history of the article LinaMishima 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. Delete the cruft now and avoid the rush later.--Tbeatty 07:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep OneGuy 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; perhaps merge anything salvageable into Anti-Americanism.--Cúchullain t/c 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (no I am not Anti-American). The article is informative, and with some references, might become a good article. utcursch | talk 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize in advance, but I fail to see how unsourced, absurd, sweeping generalizations are informative.--65.16.61.35 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can add references. That is because the material is almost entirely made up of generalizations by random editors as the anon user above has noted. All that random material has to go leaving us with just one sourced comment by a Frenchman. And even that is a controversial allegation, not a statement of fact.--Zleitzen 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days (webcomic)

[edit]

I created this page back in 2005, and was recently asked about it possibly being deleted, which I agree to. Nothing notable about the comic, although the Wikipedia page was mentioned on the author's website. Small number of google hits ([53]) Thunderbrand 18:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while a furry, right-wing webcomic does sound like a lot of fun, it doesn't appear that there are many reliable, independent sources available. Recury 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - enjoyable comic that I read regularly, but inherently not notable in the grand scheme of things. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, I tagged this as unsourced and lacking importance. If the influx of visitors from Wikipedia was noticed, then it can't really have been that popular to begin with. - Hahnchen 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had no idea what Better Days was when a friend mentioned it in a blog post. This entry was the first hit in when I googled it, and I found it very useful. I may be a fringe case, but I'm happy that it was there when I needed the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.104.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Could this be transcluded to Comixpedia? Not enough evidence of notability as far as I could tell. delete possibly after transclusion. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, there is a page on this at Wikifur ([54]). Thunderbrand 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oofo

[edit]

Unverifiable/essay/original research. I'm sure there are articles we already have that duplicate this. I couldn't find relevant Ghits for "Oofo," most of the stuff I did get seems to be complete nonsense. Mangojuicetalk 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and move to proper capitalization. - Bobet 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Burns (Attorney)

[edit]

Found this at Jacob Burns which is also the name of an Australian football (soccer) player. Moved it to create disambig - but nothing that links (or linked) to Jacob Burns refers to this person. I'm not sure how notable this person actually is, and how much they deserve their own page. Also, having a look at the edit history reveals that there was only one real editor on this page, and that this was their only edit. Cursive 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was All speedied by author's request. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton garlands

[edit]

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It and the other articles are entirely trivial, and discussion with the creator has failed to establish agreement, so I am placing them here for full peer review and comment. During discussions it has been suggested by another editor that these articles may attract link spam as Halloween approaches Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Skeleton garlands is deleted as speedy for CSD G7 (author requested deletion) --WinHunter (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other pages nominated under this rationale are:

  1. Skeleton garlandes a redirect page that was a typo and really the creator should speedy, and will be redundant if the primary page is deleted
  2. Halloween yard
  3. Squeaky rat
  4. Animated coffin
  5. Self opening coffin a redirect page which will be redundant if the target page is deleted

[I am unsure how to flag the redirect pages so have included them here]. This nomination is now complete Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no independent references provided - see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original research WP:OR, even if it is true, but instead to report what other reputable people say. Will reconsider if sources are provided. Stephen B Streater 19:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources provided User:Yy-bo 19:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't check sources for validity on my current Internet connection. Changing to captain for now. Stephen B Streater 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note The links in the articles are minimal. At least two of them are to sites whose interest in Halloween is commercial - they are selluing stuff. Those links are borderline WP:SPAM. The Squeaky Rat article has no citations, at all, not even questionable ones. The main arguments in favour of retention are rhetoric, not factual, and wikipedia is not built upion rehteoric, but upon citable, sigificant research of others, not Original research. If the articles can be shown to be notable articles about notable items or concepts than I will have no hesitation in withdrawing nominations for those articles. So far I have seen nothing to change my mind. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Final note I have no interest to wrestle about rethorics. Your nomination about commercial equals spam is just not right. The Afd is closed by db author, a legitimate opt-out. There are loads of much worse articles, which require argumentation efforts. User:Yy-bo 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since you as author have opted to clear out the articles with a speedy deletion, let's just do that and every redirect page and category associated with them. But please do not just recreate them in the way you have stated in your speedy nomination where you say "The given reason is: author request. reformat 3 articles into one userspace article. afd nomination looses too much clarity." There is no clarity in any of this series of articles and a further article of this nature will simply be a collection of lack of clarity. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Sorry i do not have unlimited time to perform rethorics with you. What will be created: 1 (one) article called halloween yard, if it turns out to be expandable/improveable enough. There are other questionable articles in the need of Afd. Authors should speedy sometimes, more authors should speed if it turns out to become an argumentation about the style of previous arguments, crystalballing about future edits. I am always happy to provide more clarity, if any need be use my talk page, ar the article talk. User:Yy-bo 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The topics of the articles Halloween yard and Animated coffin are already adequately described in other articles about halloween attractions. The use of rats and skeletons as part of the holiday decor already mentioned in Halloween traditions and I see no need for expansion. BigE1977 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note please that the articles' creator/major contributor has suggested on my talk page that I have chosen the weakest article as the lead article for this nomination. Hindsight says that may well appear to be the case, but I simply opened each of them and chose the tab on my browser that was the nearest. There was no malice in this nomination, no sneaky tricks, nothing underhand. To make this clear, please, when commenting on this nomination, review each of the articles. I have asked the major contributor to comment here on this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The articles have been good faith creations. However, i agree skeleton garlands was a weak article, not expandable. Certainly you edit in good faith as it looks. It does not belong here, however, because of your repeated quests to read the On notability essay, i have created one myself called on deletion. Link from my user page. I still hope the halloween articles to be expandable, and the external site is, well, somehow noteable. Squeaky rats are questionable too, but same thing other toy articles: not really that exapandable. By the way i am an individual, i do not edit in the name of any organisation. I am doing it for personal enlightment. User:Yy-bo
      • The articles seem interesting, but look a bit like your personal impression. Can you find published sources for your descriptions? Stephen B Streater 22:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Several 100's of websites. It is an internet phenomena. Better say, it is documentated on the internet. I have spend a certain amount of time to research halloween on the internet. Guess there are not photo books. I have another link in mind, to a site with 100's of projects, animated and not animated. I do not believe it is non-noteable. User:Yy-bo 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much more than a paragraph to be said about each; merge with Halloween traditions. --McGeddon 12:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Trivial though these subjects may be, and poorly written though they are, there is room for expansion. Squeaky rat should be renamed Squeaky toy since no since general article on them exists. Halloween yard and Animated coffin are subjects not dealt with in Halloween traditions. Since these articles aren't exactly stubs, I think they should be left to stand, although cleaned up. wikipediatrix 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, probably a CSD A7 candidate, but certainly no evidence of notability. --- Deville (Talk) 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Francis

[edit]

Non notable person. Deputy Chairman/Deputy Head? Pally01 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gtalk2voip

[edit]

Non-notable software. Google weilds 34 sites linking to there homepage. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty City Sound System

[edit]

Speedy tag changed to a prod by closing admin, de-prod with minor changes (wikifying, add of an EP listing). Only 11 unique google hits which seem to be for pod casts and myspace pages. Album seems to be a free internet release. Fails WP:BAND. Irongargoyle 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil glossary

[edit]

Unencyclopedic grab-bag of fictional people, places, and things in the Resident Evil game series, with no real-world context and no hope for real-world context, no sources and no hope for sources, and no encyclopedic content whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a straw man -- nobody has said anything that remotely suggests they think RE is not notable. The problem is that most of the aspects of RE discussed in this "glossary" are non-notable, and the notable ones already have articles of their own. — Haeleth Talk 11:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The Bread 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    • We have no exact rules on anything, except for verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. And if we had exact rules, there would be no need to discuss deleting articles. Would you like to offer a reason why this article should be kept? — Haeleth Talk 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I keep saying that to certain user(s), but that's irrelevant, my vote is per Pinkkeith anyway

(The Bread 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment You need to look up what is a dictionary. This is clearly not a dictionary. --Pinkkeith 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chinese Indonesian to preserve the contribution history after the contents were merged. - Bobet 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Indonesian Ethnic Chinese and the view of nationhood

[edit]

Article's title is POV, contents already merged to Chinese Indonesian. I think it should be deleted. Julius.kusuma 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I don't find the article title particularly POV, the article as it stands is more appropriate as part of the Chinese Indonesian article, and Julius has done a great job of merging the two. --Sepa 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sepa, although if the contents have been merged, it may be more appropriate to replace with a redirect so the contrib history is preserved. Hornplease 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awesome merge, Julius! Love the editing. Yeah, the two have been properly merged IMHO. I agree with Hornplease though, a redirect would be useful here ('specially since redirects cost nothing, and complies with redirect policy). --Lemi4 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. *drew 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Delete since the content has already been merged Kunderemp 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Barrichbeyan

[edit]

Article contains bogus claims, in an apparent attempt to substantiate a claim to a Scottish Barony title - using Wiki as a tool. Hiram man 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wynne

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - no first team competitive appearances - see here. BlueValour 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offthedge

[edit]

This has been prodded, but the prod was removed. Fails WP:SPAM and is non-notable WP:CORP. --Richhoncho 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loscil

[edit]

Non-notable band. Although they do have an AMG page, it didn't say that they did anything notable or met WP:MUSIC. T REXspeak 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Bobet 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-metal

[edit]

This "genre" is a made up neologism, with only one band being described as post metal. All the other bands listed as post metal are better categorized as other legitimate genres. Also the article isn't sourced (most of the sources are band websites and wikipedia itself) and it has a few self references. The genre is basically the same thing as progressive metal. T REXspeak 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nonsense pseudo-metal-genre-cruft Spearhead 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why remove it because it's niche? As for sourcing, the New York Times is pretty reputable. It's being sourced more and more as I spend more time on it, and is better sourced than progressive metal. There are a lot of genres out there, what makes any one more legitimate than another? At the moment, 13 albums are in a post-metal category, by more than one artist, contributed by more than one editor. I don't see how removing it improves the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. For evidence of the term's growing use in the music press, see [55]

[56] [57] [58] and [59].Seegoon 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment One of those was a forum, and the user said "Post metal, did you coin that yourself?", post metal was created by Isis the band, and is used to to describe their music, but thats it. No other bands consider themselves post metal. 1 genre for a very small number of bands(about 3 or 4) isn't enough to warrant an article. Besides the sources are from lyrics and interviews from isis, and wikipedia itself. I would rather have an article that is unsourced than one with questionable sources or self references. T REXspeak 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really Weak Keep. Weak because I can't find anything to suggest that ANY of the bands listed use the term to describe their own music. But bands very rarely describe themselves in such narrow brackets and there are a lot of GHits for the term, many to bands whom I would regard as stylistically similar to those listed. It's a tricky one because these genre neologisms can either take and become totally embedded or they can disappear within a couple of months. Could be a Brit-pop or a Post-rock, could be irrelevent by Xmas....Ac@osr 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally use the term post-metal and have witnessed a popularization of the term in music forums or real life conversations with other music fans. I also believe more and more acts are producing works that can easily be categorised as post-metal. It might be too early for it to be included in wikipedia, as I think that Ac@osr suggests, but since it is included and in fact as a well-written article that includes the criticism suggesting its non-existance, it should stay and maybe its deletion could be reconsidered in a couple of years from now. --daydreamer 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. The term might be in (incorrect) use due to success of post-rock, but it's not Wikipedia-notable. No band is best categorized as "post-metal", and belong to more verifiable genres. Prolog 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the one hand it describes a fairly precise sound - on the other, this is not a tiny niche but, along with the whole drone-doom thing, one of the two really hotly tipped extreme music genres to break out of the Terrorizer ghetto. It's far more precise than post-rock, and is broader based than, say, blackened thrash metal - and if you can have separate pages for minimal house and microhouse, then you need a division between post and prog metal. I can think of no reason to delete it but to satisfy some folks' ignorant egos. There might be a case for a renaming if a more common term can be found, but it looks as though this is the one. Commander deathguts 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why o why remove it? When I was looking for more bands like Isis and Cult of Luna and this article felt like a gift from above. It's well-written and an interesting read, please do NOT remove this 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. - Bobet 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelsoft Solutions Philippines

[edit]

Corporation that just started a week ago; no chance of satisfying WP:CORP Valrith 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Earth

[edit]

Appears to be a hoax/in-joke, about a sonic the hedgehog forum. The article has attracted a suspicious number of newbie contributors for having been around for just under three hours. -- Vary | Talk 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Sonic Zone Forum as well. On closer inspection, I think this was probably speedyable, but I'll see what others think. Sorry. -- Vary | Talk 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ireton

[edit]

Was speedied, original author requested udeletion, I'm neutral since I'm the admin who deleted it. --Dijxtra 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilter!

[edit]

Little more than a dictionary definition, no encyclopedic content.  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Election Selection Trauma

[edit]
No need for personal attacks. Only 12 hits on lexis/nexis; how many of the google hits are copies of this wikipedia entry? how many are blogs?--csloat 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best a "News of the Weird" type item, at worst, we're helping promote some doctor's scheme to get new patients. Gamaliel 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think the article could be better sourced, ie., more examples of usage from reliable sources. As to the suggestion to merge with the Limbaugh article, I don't think that is appropriate, since he did not coin the term, at least according to the article. The psychologist should get the credit, not Limbaugh. The reference there should link to this article. Crockspot 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to "Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show," the terms listed there are either coined or popularized by Limbaugh. So PEST could go there, and as I said, it already is there. Pan Dan 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CANCELLED. Serial sockpuppetry from the nominator. -Splash - tk 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SNN News 6

[edit]

Unnoteworthy Americian local cable channel. Very limited viewership, given that it is only on one cable provider in a very small part of the American state of Florida. Fails WP:CORP and WP:N United Forever 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. cj | talk 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National talk like an aussie day

[edit]

Unverifiable article, no sources, Google gives only four hits for "talk like an aussie day". Not yet worth an article. Maybe if it's still around next year... Huon 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save Instead of searching google, check Facebook, I will add the link to the article. There currently are 41 members after a few hours, from across the country, with over 100 members invited and more planned through networking. Just let the article be so that it will have a chance to grow; I don't care if you leave the "hoax" thing on for the next year, just don't delete it. Mastapd 19:41, 6 September 2006
  • Oh, I'm sorry, I don't have the money or the time to go and rent server space and code a whole new website. Facebook is what i have time for, being in school and all. Mastapd 22:00 6 Sept, 2006
  • Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. - Narcisse 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Facebook is the source? Boy, are there a lot of articles I could write! Delete. GassyGuy 03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made up at university this week. Of course, for me every day is like an Aussie day. :>)Capitalistroadster 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting into a very immature junior high, bicker-fest. I realize that Facebook seems like an invalid "source" but it is easily one of the fastest ways to spread information and gain support. As a college student, being involved in Facebook, I realize it's potential as a tool and I am exploiting it as such. Life is lived day-to-day and there are countless desicions made therein. Good examples of this exist throughout Wikipedia, International Speak Like a Pirate Day, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? These and many other articles were born out of a whim made by someone, one day. The GHSM has legitimacy now because the guy, after being spurred on my collegues wrote a book and such. And Pirate Day? that was just another joke among friends that caught on. The only difference in this situation is that I am being proactive and utilizing the tools available to me in my situation. So, please, just let it be and let it grow; it will happen. And if it doesn't, if people just forget about it by December or sometime that the Wikicommunity sets, I'll delete the article myself. Please. Mastapd 22:10 6 Sept. 2006
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia documents topics after they become notable. It is not a publicist's tool. Plus, "One Last 'Crikey!' for Steve Irwin" has way more members anyway. Okay, that's not really germaine to the discussion, but, what I'm saying is, if it catches on like that wretchedly idiotic spaghetti monster, then I'm sure people will support the article, but for now, this isn't the place for it. GassyGuy 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right Gassy, that group does have way more articles, and I apologize for making it seem as though Wikipedia was being misused as a publicist tool, I understand where that comes from. But you can see that there is different support throughout many communities involving this subject; so why isn't this still the place for the article, if I combine membership with the 'one last Crikey' group and all the other steve irwin group within the next week, I'll have, conservatively, 2500 members. That growth may happen without said merge anyways. When's the cutoff? And when Aussy Day rolls around next year and I have 10000 people saying 'crikey', should I go through all this again, only to be rejected again? (Though i'm not saying i have the power to compell 10000 people, it's just a figure of speech) Wikipedia is supposed to be 'Open Source' info, at least that's the way it was described in... Time Magazine? when it was featured, but who is it open to? My group of 75 supporters? 200? 10000? what are the qualifications to be included in the open source? Mastapd
  • Delete. The difference between this and International Speak Like a Pirate Day and The Flying Spaghetti Monster (and other things made up in school one day, such as Rugby football) is that there are multiple reliable independant sources verifying those things. Talk Like an Aussie Day isn't (currently) verifiable, which is why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. --Mako 04:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it gets deleted, I'll wait a week for other sources to get set up, then I'll be back.
  • Delete - made up concept that has no place in an article - 09:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tried to explain that it probably violates WP:NFT to the author when xe removed my prod template. --Gray Porpoise 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to remove that, I think my mouse went crazy when i was highlighting something else to delete--Mastapd
That's okay, people make mistakes. Unless that's a made-up excuse... Anyways, please wait until a made-up holiday gains merits other than being listed on Facebook. --Gray Porpoise 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circism

[edit]

Non-notable nelogism. This "religion" produces zero Google hits. Article makes no claim of any sort of following. PROD tag was removed without explanation by User:AkiShinji, the sole contributor. Portions of the article appear to be near-copyvios from http://circism.info.se/ -Elmer Clark 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages as they are concepts unique to this religion:
Okay, I would agree about that you may delete the last two, but I see no reason why you should delete Circism. Why I removed PROD? When someone added that, the article was in a new state where there was like no information. I thought it meant all they wanted was information. So I saw no reason for that mark when I had written many more lines. It's a lot of text on that page, I think that article's quite good. AkiShinji 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a perfectly good treatment of the subject, the problem is that the subject is not notable. It returns zero relevant Google hits and the article makes no claims that a significant number of people adhere to the religion. See WP:Notability and WP:NFT. -Elmer Clark 21:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No discussion but it looks like an obvious case. None of the references mention this product by name so it's unverifiable. And some guy doing product development on a toothbrush isn't automatically notable, which can be seen from the fact that no one's talking about it. - Bobet 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TiFinity Toothbrush

[edit]

Article is a infomercial on a Non-notable super tooth-brush. Only one google result for "TiFinity Toothbrush" is Wikipedia itself. Article has only one editor. Abu Badali 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual erasure

[edit]

A short article on what appears to be a minor neologism, judging from the references and extremely low Google count (237 unique, a goodly number of which are simply references or spam links back to the same paper by Kenji Yoshino). There is precious little evidence that this term extends much beyond Kenji, the author who coined the term six years ago, and the paper in which he coined it. Guy 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - simply by going back and looking at the article in question again, I immediate see one other paper and one editorial listed in the reference sections that use variants of the phrase in question, which help establish its use in common speech --
  • Do we have articles on other terms which are used in one paper, referenced in a couple of others? I can recall deleting some, but I can't call to mind any articles on terms matching these criteria. Guy 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the term gains notability it can certainly be recreated. This isn't a place to advertise your neologism in hopes it gains acceptance.--Crossmr 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That it was one paper is not of itself an issue, because that paper was picked up by many learned journals. To me this is evidence of at least being on the right side of the notability threshold. Fiddle Faddle
  • Very Strong Keep. It has wide currency in daily speech within the American (possibly others?) Bisexual community.
Comment - I have no idea what came first, the paper by Kenji Yoshino or it's informal use in everyday speech, (but I suspect the latter). However, when I created this article it was because of the phrase's daily use in speech, not because of the paper, (which I've never read). I also find it ironically amusing that someone else is once again striving to "Erase" another sign of the often marginalized Bisexual community which is in a continual struggle with segments of both the straight and the mainstream lesbian & gay community to even be acknowledged as existing, (if interested see my Rant on this very subject here).CyntWorkStuff 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone would come up with that canard. My intent here is to remove an article on a term which appears to have very limited currency (per Google test). The concept may be notable, and there may be a notable term for it, but I don't see much evidence of widespread currency of this term. Guy 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of its being "commonly used"? The very low unique Google count indicates otherwise. Guy 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Jdclevenger 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons already given. --Chips Critic 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm unfamiliar with the term, but recognise the concept. I think the article needs some editing/adding to to recognise that the term is an attempt to give a name to a event/situation. It's possible that in the long run a different term will be the one that gains widespread currency, but if bisexual erasure is recognised and has been used in published media, then start with that, but with recognition that the term is not yet in widespread use and may be an Americanism. Certainly "bisexual erasure" happens - both lesbian/gay and straight communities do it, which makes it somewhat different from the phenomenon of "recloseting" (is there a wiki entry for that?) - pretending that people for whom there is sound evidence are LGB were straight. "Recloseting" is a form of heterosexism, but "bisexual erasure" can be heterosexism or can be the conviction that people ought to fit into exactly two categories - gay/lesbian or straight, no half measures. This is a known and documented phenomenon, and worth having an entry for on wikipedia. (My cultural background, FWIW, is UK-LGBT.) Yonmei 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gayni Zhumasheva

[edit]

I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and she only generates 135 Google hits. --Nishkid64 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all subsequently listed (losing) competitors in the Kazakh Pop Idol competition. Note that Nishkid's number of Ghits includes WP mirrors.

Hornplease 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous tall men

[edit]

Violates WP:NOT, unrefrenced, unencylopediac, subective Moland Spring 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion are: List of famous short women, List of famous tall women, List of famous short men. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men~. Moland Spring 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep theres nothing wrong with it
  • Keep — Encyclopedic: it's a limited list of people with an unusual stature. They have articles on WP, so presumably that means they satisfy the notability criteria. What's subjective about a person's height? The reference issue can be addressed, and the same issue can be applied to 97% of the other articles on WP. — RJH (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please define the objective criteria for inclusion. SuperMachine 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all, not the most useful of lists but I don't think it's really subjective. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the cut off point is subjective and certain professions that are height dependent make being tall or short not a notable characteristic: tall basketball players or supermodels, short jockeys, etc. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Carlossuarez46. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Aside from the amount of work that me and others have put into the topic, you can read from the talk pages that myself and Halbared have recently decided upon policies wherby each height must be referenced and each submission must be notable, which would then put the article much closer to a good thing. As for subjective, I also don't understand how a person's height, once sourced, can be anything other than fact. I'm also unsure which part of WP:NOT you think the article violates. HamishMacBeth 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please define the objective criteria for inclusion. SuperMachine 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelMerge — Taking 5'10" and 5'5" for average height (men/women) and applying a 3" avg. distr. we get: the 10 tallest men = 9th perc., the 13 shortest men = 9th perc., the 10 tallest women = 6th perc. [6 tallest = 9th perc.] and the 5 shortest women are only at the 5th percetile. The current cutoffs are only 2nd perctile which statistically means ~5% of the population. At least 6th percentile is equal to 1 in 500 million, or ~13 total on Earth. Thus, perhaps the four lists (Tall men/women + Short men/women) could individually deleted and then the information merged into one article - maybe something like "Human Height Extremes" - and then have the top 10 for each category in tabular format.Moridin 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cut-offs can be readily changed if the list grows too large. Men and women have different average heights, so a combined list would be skewed by gender. — RJH (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This list (despite being somewhat silly) is far better maintained and pruned for notability than other similar lists of people on wikipedia. Discussions about proper sources are frequent on the talk page, which is a good thing. Carlossuarez46's point, btw, has been taken into account by Halbared and others, who have done a great job of keeping the list from being overwhelmed with semi-notable basketball players and professional wrestlers.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These lists have possibly been done in a bit of a "freak show" manner which makes them appear silly, but as someone who is 41 inches(105 cm) tall I think there's potential value in them. I learned a good deal more about Spanish pianist Alicia de Larrocha, and helped improved her article, while looking for names to add to the women's list. There's no similar urge to delete List of people with visual disabilities or List of deaf people. That said the list would maybe look less silly if it took a cue from those two and was arranged by "levels" rather than specific heights as height can change with age.--T. Anthony 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I also created the article on actress Meredith Eaton when lookinf for names to add.--T. Anthony 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked at the discussion page, and could not find an objective rule. This leads me to question the maintainability of this list. There has already been lots of edit confilcts centered on the "importance" of players. Sure, there are few people editing the list constantly, but what happens when they eventually burn out? Lazybum 04:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The rule is the one that applies to all stand-alone lists. Their being tall has to be part of their fame or significance. According to one site[http://www.eurobasket.com/over210.asp he top Take Lock Martin, who I recently added, he'd likely just be a doorman if a director hadn't noticed he was very tall. Even Christopher Lee got some roles because of his heighth. That the more serious editors will "burn out" causing quality to decline is a risk in almost any article.
  • Delete unless completely restructured The extremes on each list are almost worthy of the lists themselves - they are people who are notable for being tall or short. However, as you get down the list (e.g., tall men) you start getting to people who are notable for things other than their height and just happen to be tall. That crosses over into triviality. I agree with Moridin's proposal as to how this topic might be saved, but as it stands, it's fairly arbitrary and worthless. GassyGuy 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notable topic, actively-maintained list. Kappa 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Is a good list, Hammish, The Fat Man, myself and others are working on it to ensure it doesn't explode, to keep non-notable person off and to try and make the heights sourced.(Halbared 07:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. The height of a specific person is objective, but the inclusion on this list is completely subjective. If this article was about extremes, such as the tallest man/woman, that would be objective. A good portion of this article (especially at the bottom) seems to be famous people who also happen to be tall, instead who people who are famous solely because of their height. SuperMachine 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those that assert that this article is objective, please provide objective criteria for whom may be included. This criteria should leave zero room for arguments about whether a person should or should not be included in the article. For example, it should unambigously define why Djimon Hounsou (whose height of 6'4" isn't even mentioned in his article) should be included, while Bill Russell (at 6'9") should not. SuperMachine 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)-"Selection criteria-If this person/thing/etc. wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" An actor who is say 6 ft 4 could be partly famous for playing "tall guy" roles. Being 6 ft 4 to 6 ft 8 is less significant in basketball as its more normal. Still the examples you give might be valid, in which case you take Hounsou off and possibly put Russell in.--T. Anthony 04:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: According to one basketball site[60] the tallest 50 basketball players in the world are all 221 cm or taller. Hence a basketball player much below that can likely be said to have fame unrelated to height.--T. Anthony 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Did you read this part "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." Billy Barty didn't significantly contribute to discussions of dwarfism or short people? Robert Pershing Wadlow has an article for reasons totally unrelated to his being tall?--T. Anthony 15:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's deaf? How hearing impaired must you be to count? Who's Native American? How much ancestry do you need to declare it. Yet we have List of deaf people and List of Native Americans. (That said "famous" is supposed to be dropped in list titles, a rename to "noted" might be in order)--T. Anthony 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I still find this article encyclopedic, important (as a collection of one kind of trivia info and famous people that can belong to it) and, as mentioned above, interesting. And as in other of the kind "list of famous tall/short" articles, it is important to show poeple with unusual height (tall or short) that their height really doesnt matter that much to achieve their goals. They simply show them poeple they can relate to. BTW, it is a good point, that tall basketball players are nothing special, thus only very tall basket players should be contained in the article. --Dudo2 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'm not on this list for being 7 feet tall, but these tall guys of whatever (unknown for 99% of the world) are there just for being even shorter than me. Smells bad. Dark thief of 7 feet 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. The title is famous tall men, of which you are obvisusly not one. And again, as you'll see from the talk page, non notable people and the majority of basketball players are being weeded out, or at least trying to be. HamishMacBeth 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The height qualification has been moved up before it can again. That said you wouldn't be on this list because, no offense, you aren't notable. Just like I wouldn't belong on the List of famous short men even though only eight of those guys are shorter than me.--T. Anthony 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take the troll of 7 feet seriously, he's just goofing around. I suggest taking a look at his past contributions before responding to him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an ironic complaint just to show how bad this list is handled. Yeah, don't take it seriously... It may hurt the weakest brains. Dark thief of 7 feet 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it's by the standards of common sense. For example, John Cleese is tall and known to pretty much everybody who's ever watched television. Kevin Durand is tall, but you'd have a damn hard time explaining him as famous.BertieBasset 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take a different position because I think the word "famous" should be removed or replaced with "noted" from the lists if they survive. People add famous as a justification, but Wikipedia's list guidelines are against having the word "famous" in lists. Anyway these lists should be for people whose height is an important or defining part of their public identity or notability. If it's limited to that I don't see how it'd be failiing list guidelines.--T. Anthony 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and inaccurate. --J.K. Terenci 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a list that provides encyclopedic information, and the person that nominated this for deletion was a wikipedia members for about two and a half weeks Seeing as how these articles have been around for a long time, why would it be deleted now? They need to be heavily edited for accuracy, and by no means should be deleted from wikipedia. Capsgm2002 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Freeman

[edit]

vanity for non-notable gamer -Steve Sanbeg 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism Foundation

[edit]

Absolutely non-notable THB 21:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist Declaration

[edit]

Completely non-notable, see "Capitalism Foundation" above THB 21:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 16:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuliya Pereyma

[edit]

I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnara Silbayeva

[edit]

I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funzone Entertainment

[edit]

Non-notable fan-film/game website/organization; 41 unique GHits for "Funzone Entertainment". Prod removed anonymously without comment or improvement. ~Matticus TC 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. This is probably vanity. The forum has like 100 posts in it total, and they don't even have like a real domain for their website. --Nishkid64 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Funzone is just starting out. I just recently got the forums and I'm too lazy to even get a domain name, feel free to delete the article, but Funzone still is a company, you cannot change that. - Funzone's Founder
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aykin Tolepbergen

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 22:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MS 70-270 XP (Study guides & Tips

[edit]

Contested PROD by author. Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information; unencyclopedic listcruft; probably a copyvio from a book about the topic of a similar name. --Kinu t/c 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Loboda

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: some "idles" improve their position if you count the number of Cyrillic googles. Not this one: 91 for "Милана Лобода" - and to think I proposed one for deletion when she had 30,000 or more ...--Pan Gerwazy 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akmaral Dosumbekova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add 37 Cyrillic ones. Enough said.--Pan Gerwazy 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not clear who was sixth, Dosumbekova or Isabekova. Does not matter much now, last year Isabekova made a little breakthrough in Russia, and Dosumbekova, er ...--Pan Gerwazy 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I read the whole article now in stead of the Google citation and it seems I had to interpret "Dosumbekova became the sixth, Isabekova became the seventh" as meaning "... the sixth to be eliminated, the seventh ...". So, since there were 12 candidates to start with, that part of the article(s) is correct. ([63] for those who know a little Russian). --Pan Gerwazy 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rüms

[edit]

Not Notable; obscure garage band, no claims to notability other than people going on to other obscure bands, which I am also going to nominate as part of this AFD. Brianyoumans 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions - I have also nominated Martin Giguère, his next band Deimos (band), and "power metal legends" Days of Yore. Days of Yore are probably the most notable - they put out one album, and reportedly played a festival. The other releases are listed as "independent" releases - the listing on the Encyclopaedia Metallum lists the others as demos. I don't see any signs that they ever toured. --Brianyoumans 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little uncomfortable with prodding them; I'm not a metal fan, I'm not French Canadian, and I don't usually mess with band articles - I thought it would be better to discuss the deletions in AFD. --Brianyoumans 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can prod something if it doesn't assess its topic's notability. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but these bands all contain "guitar virtuoso" Martin Giguère, a member of "power metal legends" Days of Yore. I think the articles had claims of notability; perhaps poor claims, but I wasn't positive. --Brianyoumans 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so fast, Brian. Most pages on musicians, whether they are non-notable or famous, often inflate the credentials of the person. It also happens with articles about movies and video games (even books!). What you listed sounds like some non-notable BS that a person excitedly wrote in order to make the band sound better. I don't want you to assume bad faith with every band you come across, but bear in mind that this stuff happens a lot. Anyway, you can always check the article against a notability guideline (in this case, WP:MUSIC). I see you are no newcomer to deletion, so I apologize if I am retelling things you've already known. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makpal Isabekova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and only generates 160 G-hits. I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please reconsider. This may well be the only one worth the trouble. Read my arguments. --Pan Gerwazy 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, if she really is notable, how come there aren't that many G-hits? I'll consider changing my vote, but I'd just like for an answer to my question first. --Nishkid64 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This lady is notable in Kazakhstan, Russia and among Russian speakers elsewhere in the former Soviet Union (Novaya Volna which means "new wave" actually takes place every year in a Baltic state). This means that most of what is written about her will be in the Cyrillic alphabet. If you google on "Макпал Исабекова" (that is the Russian Cyrillic version of her name) you get 37,800 as I wrote below. Unfortunately, the version in the article is Kazakh Cyrillic, with a diacritic sign on the "k" in her "christian" name. That is one of the things that will have to be changed too, I guess, since the Kazakh Cyrillic version of her name only gets 90 google hits. Note that Kappa made an allusion to that - unfortunately for him, most Cyrillic googles in these Pop Idle articles do NOT get above 1,000. That makes Isabekova a bit special. Thanks for considering my request.--Pan Gerwazy 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge entertainer who had a national audience and was undoubtably the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage. Also helps to combat systemic bias such as that caused by using the google test on people from Kazakhstan. Kappa 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 37,800 for a Russian cyrillic version of her name. The Kazakh one gets only 100 google. I remember that this is ideal ground for land mines, but I think that problems on notoriety could be best served by keeping all those "also-rans" (those who did not take 1st, 2nd or 3rd position) out of Wikipedia. (this was by me, but I have since changed my view, see below --Pan Gerwazy 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Let's keep only nr 1, and 3. The others will be forgotten next year. Change to Keep This lady later performed at "Novaya Volna" and did not do too badly. So she is known a bit. The google hits for the Cyrillic version seem correct and not artificially driven up by a fan website. However, this article will have to be cleaned up with more than a mop and a broom stick. It does not state when this Pop Idol contest took place (2004?), I found a site which mentioned her as seventh and not as sixth, the plural of "khit" in Russian is "khity" (I think -someone living in Russia please confirm this) so the translation "hits" is wrong, the first link is to stars KZ and not to Isabekova (creating the suspicion that this is primarily promotion for Pop Idol and KZ and not an article on Isabekova) and finally the red link to Dunayevsky (the composer of so many well-known Russian songs such as "serdtse" is a DISGRACE. May I kindly suggest that other voters here reconsider their vote as I have done? Note that if we delete this one, we are orphaning a Finnish article. I had not noticed that at first either. By the way, an article in another language is always a good sign of some notoriety at least.--Pan Gerwazy 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discography exists. There are worse music articles around. I think this person hasn't importance in any country can't be generic deletion argument. User:Yy-bo 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not vote "Keep"? There are a number of other pages that link to this article: most notably the "Suomi" Wikipedia. Makpal is even mentioned on the pages of two other contestants as "musical influence".--Pan Gerwazy 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good, here the vote. I have also copied some articles to my userspace. I would like to refer to them as bottom level layout requirement to keep an article. There are other articles about unpleasant music records. I do not really have a good guideline what to delete. Definetively these articles are not unpleasant. Probably they can be expanded. Always possible to delete them later on. User:Yy-bo 17:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mad Jack 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. Every one of the three reasons quoted by the nominator has been proven obviously wrong. She does not fail WP:BIO, she has 37,800 google hits and far from being non-notable, there was already a Finnish article about her.--Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. Remember WP:NPA, thank you.--Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Chestnut

[edit]

non-notable youtube video, had been prodded. -Steve Sanbeg 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Just seems like vanity. --Nishkid64 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. User:Yy-bo 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't consider a video on YouTube as notable. There are no requirements to be on there. TGreenburg
  • Do Not Delete Although it is debatable whether Youtube videos are notable, some are quite popular and reach the status of pop-culture references. I think it's important to include pop culture references, no matter how mainstream or subculture they may be in reference. Also the entry mentions that this video has been circulated via email, which means it's only reference is not it's recent posting on Youtube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.107.224.34 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Pokotylo

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asem Zhaketayeva

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for arguments to keep some more in, I had a look at those googles and found many were in fact connected to this year's edition of a singing competition in Pavlodar for very young singers. They mention the winners in the past. Zhaketaeva is one of them. So nothing new, unfortunately. Note that if Google gives more hits for the Latin than for the Cyrillic version of the name, that is usually because many Latin googles are from mirror sites. Sorry, cannot find anything "mitigating" here.--Pan Gerwazy 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Windsor Lifeguard Club

[edit]

Delete seems entirely non-notable Charlesknight 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Kotlyarova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And even with you a limited number do not refer to the singer. --Pan Gerwazy 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa, do you really believe Wikipedia should be a spam ground? Many of these articles are in a mess (Isabekova's is a prime example) and look like a vehicle for promoting "Pop Idol". Let's concentrate on the ones who finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd, not forgetting that "one that got away" (Isabekova). By the way, some people in the West CAN check by way of Google, (it's just copy and paste) but when you do not put the Russian version, but (only) the Kazakh one with diacritics, 1) you ensure that they are going to find fewer hits (the Russian versions still dominate from 1:100 to 1:1000 2) if the Westerner knows about this problem, he will have to install Russian keyboard software to overtype the special letter.--Pan Gerwazy 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is spam, there is nothing overly promotional or POV. I also don't see why wikipedia readers shouldn't be able to read about someone who's been on national television multiple times. Also this one did come third, so where is your "keep" vote? Kappa 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am only an Australian interested in the format of SuperStar KZ, I can only do so much since I do not live in Kazakhstan & experience the music industry first hand. The articles I created are not "spam" (such an ignorant saying), they are centered AROUND SuperStar KZ, but have important useful information concerning the show. Perhaps local Kazakhs can help in this sense, after all that is why we have stubs - or are they just a farceade to Wikipedia as well?ZlatkoT 09:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinara Sadvakasova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, I am following the list as it was published at the [Russian portal] and only one of these people until now breaks the pattern with a lot of Cyrillic googles while only few Latin googles and only finished sixth: Makpal Isabekova. However, both with that name and this one there is a slight problem. If User:Nishkid64 takes you up on this, he will copy-paste the Cyrillic version into Google and ... find only 90 Isabekovas and ... 1 Sadvakasova. The reason is that the version in Wikipedia is often in Kazakh Cyrillic and these diacritics are not used so much even by Kazakh-speaking Kazakhs.--Pan Gerwazy 23:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot: not everyone can just install Russian keyboard software to overtype that Cyrillic diacritic k that they paste from the Wikipedia page. So many people in the West will simply not be able to tell how popular these artists are in Russia or among Russian speakers. If that is not an argument to (also) put the Russian language version in the article, I do not know what is. Actually, today Dinara has 87 Cyrillic googles, fewer than the Latin ones. I suspect that, even though she finished fourth, she went back to school.--Pan Gerwazy 11:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arstan Mirzagereev

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Revanova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No discussion, but the article fails WP:V, reads like an ad, and is about software with no indication of notability (plus the website linked in the article doesn't even seem to be about the same thing, and the other link doesn't work for me). - Bobet 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brightspark

[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE to the best of my knowledge. Crystallina 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiya Rossoshanskaya

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This result is unanimously overturned by DRV in light of new evidence here. Xoloz 12:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

del promo of a search engine launced on Sept. 1 2006. A couple of newspaper hypes is not a valid source for a highly technical topic, nor proof of its notability. Quoting: "an experimental version of ChaCha was launched Monday, and it immediately crashed and was down most of Tuesday." A feat of dubiuous notability IMO. `'mikka (t) 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. It may be mentioned on Christopher Newport University, but otherwise it is far too local in scope. El_C 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006 Madison Hall fire

[edit]

Article about a residence hall fire on the Christopher Newport University campus. It made local news, but that's about it. The event didn't really have any lasting impact on a higher-than-local scale, and the residence hall in question is not noteworthy enough to have an article. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EOLed

[edit]

No real hope of this ever being more than a dictdef. The page has already been transwikied. Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erlan Alimov

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Ryan Freel. Nothing notable outside the context, and it's already mentioned there. - Bobet 15:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farney

[edit]

It seems unencyclopedic. Bart133 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanara Khamitova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinara Koskeldiyeva

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Nishkid64 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. And I'm off to the woolsack races! El_C 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetbury Woolsack Races

[edit]

NN local event — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Though as I've just closed a series of these as delete, I suggest a merge might be in order. Petros471 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asem Tasbulatova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I suggest merge. Petros471 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Malzagov

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well he has 1110 googles on the Cyrillic version of his name, which is "a bit" more than the 106 for (Kazakh?) Мақпал Исабекова, but far less than the ... 37,800 for (Russian?) "Макпал Исабекова". So you are right, Google is dangerous to use here. However, I still think that those who did not finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd will be fast forgotten.--Pan Gerwazy 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniy Gartung

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasdelete --- Deville (Talk) 02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old School 2

[edit]

There is no sources stating that this movie is going to be produced. According to the article, even Will Ferrel, one of the supposed stars, has stated he was not aware of this movie being produced. Joe Jklin (T C) 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fan speculation. IMDB is not the end all-be all when it comes to movie information; they've been known to jump the gun based on rumours and speculation before. Nothing is confirmed about this film anywhere. (I actually read where Todd Phillips said he wouldn't do an Old School 2, but that was a while ago). Wavy G 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree. This movie is definitely not being made. Sad, but true. DELETE. Knea2006

Until there's an actual release about this being green-lit and considering the sources so far, it's not article worthy at all yet. DELETE. Wayman975

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

http://movies.ign.com/articles/738/738391p1.html http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2005/08/old_school_2.html http://movies.about.com/od/oldschool/a/oldschool082405.htm http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=10929 Green Lights? Fejjisthemann 06:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)fejjisthemann[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 no consensus to delete. I suggest merge. Petros471 19:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altynay Sapargalieva

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mark Crossley. - Mailer Diablo 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Crossley (footballer)

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Released by Burnley without playing a competitive game. Delete and Redirect. BlueValour 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean's

[edit]

POV fork of Chaldean, duplicate article, I haven't even taken the time to check if its copyvio or not. Completely unsourced, OR, you name it, its there. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. This article is complete nonsense. —Khoikhoi 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could overlook the fact that this is poorly written, prefaced with a POV rant, and the title uses the possessive case. These are editorial concerns. The rest of the article though is duplication of Chaldea, blatent copyright violations of images, original research... because much of the article is not sourced by the sources listed in the article... and it ends with more unsourced POV. Based on that, this should be deleted. The only thing I'm curious about is why this was brought to AfD when it already was PROD'd 3 days ago and as far as I can tell the PROD was not disputed?--Isotope23 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just in case the prod is contested and I forget about it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if you remove all of the OR and copyvio images, all you have left is information already at Chaldea, making this a duplicate article.--Isotope23 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, its a duplicate article. Does not really look bad. Probably the people of chaldea is not the same as the chaldean people. User:Yy-bo 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Thε Halo Θ 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiya Usova

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC and only generates 20 G-hits. I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak kKeep. She did finish second, we are keeping the Slovaks on board for that reason and to those googles must be added 1,410 hits for "Анастасия Усова", the Russian Cyrillic. Now that Kazakh Pop Idols has been out of the news for some time, she fell back, yes, but not substantially: to 1290 from 61 websites (that last one is rather high), so I am changing to a ROBUST "keep". Though I agree, finishing second and then only getting that number of googles supports the view that "she has not made it (yet)". OK, stil has not made it yet, but already a bit noteable. Let us not throw away what we may need and can still be improved. --Pan Gerwazy 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) corrected by --Pan Gerwazy 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The bulk deletion formula is not really strong. Though i appreciate that Yoda1893 has nominated the articles one by one. User:Yy-bo 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
  • KeepZlatkoT 09:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, #2 idol. Kappa 09:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge, with the suggestion that the merge is more selective than a simple copy and paste. Petros471 19:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons in Deus Ex and Weapons in Deus Ex: Invisible War

[edit]

Per several other similar AFDs, these two articles are once again an overdetailed description of each of a set of fictional objects, with no source for any of this information (other than the implicit primary source). It's just a paraphrasing of the manual, with brief, inane descriptions of each weapon (much of which is implicit from the name). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The Bread)

    • Comment It requires deletion at some point (not encyclopedic). No immeditate need (no bad layout etc.) Probably the authors can source it to somewhere else. There is not yet a policy for it. Wiki sites are relatively new; not everyone knows this type of webhosting. Some advice can not be completely wrong. User:Yy-bo 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete both. WP:NOT a game guide is official policy. Both of these articles are stuffed full of it, so the main Deux Ex article(s) won't benefit from a merge either. -- Steel 10:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but the link you provided does not say anything about a descriptive list of items from a game not being allowed. A "Game guide" would be providing information to the user to help them play the game better (i.e. "This gun is best in this situation, while this works best against this enemy"). If you're going to ban this sort of thing then should we remove all gun/enemy/level lists from all game pages? At what point do you stop? -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The combat knife does slightly less damage than the crowbar, but requires less inventory space.
    The pepper spray may be used to disrupt some laser beams by spraying into the beam. This is the 'cheapest' way around security aside from avoiding the beams manually.
    With high levels of melee combat skill, the player can use the blade to destroy weaker robots. With the combat strength enhancement, the player can use the blade to batter down most doors and destroy military robots.
    It is particularly useful on sniper rifles, the precision of which is usually insufficient.
    Downsides include its slow refire rate and the high cost of each shot in UA.
    Heck, the only sources for the IW list are from game guides. And all that's from a quick skim of both articles. How are they not game guides? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit some of those examples you cited are getting into "guide" territory, but that still doesn't justify axing the whole article. There is often a fine line between describing an object in game and giving advice on how it should best be used. That calls for discretionary alteration, not outright deletion. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Poland

[edit]

Fails to meet notability requirements, as far as I know. The fact that there are no solid citations in the media or elsewhere listed leads me to think it isn't notable. Dwiki 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism? Oh, that has to go too. :) -Dwiki 05:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is quite popular and notable - frankly, I'm shocked that I've having so much difficulty coming up with an A+ citation. WilyD 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Transwiki to Wikiquote (or possible redirect to Bushism) Political/Bushism trivia. I am extremely skeptical about the idea that this is an encyclopedically notable phrase. However, this is moot as such an entry belongs on Wikiquote not here anyway, as the quote has negligible resonance beyond its original context. Wikipedia is not an archive of catchphrases and quotations. That's what Wikiquote is for. Bwithh 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable phrase. Here, poland.ytmnd.com

  • Comment if there's a ytmnd about it, it's pretty notable... sure this isn't a humor site, this isn't a place for us all to gather and tell jokes etc. But since this is a notable joke/phrase I don't see why this articles existence would be a problem. --67.185.55.69 06:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YTMND has its own wiki to document YTMND fads. There's a link to it from the YTMND page. See Talk:YTMND for more about why YTMND fads don't belong on Wikipedia --Dwiki 06:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. The phrase is highly notable outside of YTMND - it's the subject of recurring jokes on the Daily show, at the very least, as well as basically anyplace on the internet ---- This isn't really for a YTMND wiki - on a serious note, WTF can't anyone find a solid reference for such a notable occurance? The mind boggles. WilyD 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pretty well known political phrase, was replicated and lampooned everywhere. Seems reasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe transwiki or merge to Bushisms, but this is not really an actual subject as such, just another example of political idiocy. Guy 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least merge with Bushism, which seems like it's going to be kept. It was most certainly a major, widespread catchphrase; heck, there are 119 image results for it.
Here's one usable reference I found on Lexis. It's from an Oct. 24 Boston Globe article titled "Speach Wear", written by Joshua Glenn: "During the first presidential debate on Sept. 30, John Kerry said there were three countries that supplied forces when the invasion of Iraq began - Britain, Australia, and the United States - to which George W. Bush testily replied, "Well, actually you forgot Poland!" The nation's producers of election-year political apparel pounced on this immortalizable phrase, and before you could say "Kerry for President of France" there were innumerable varieties of "You forgot Poland!" T-shirts, caps, hoodies, boxer shorts, and thongs available on such insta-merchandise websites as CafePress.com and Zazzle.com." (page E2)Zagalejo 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already CSD A7'd by Geni. --- Deville (Talk) 07:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onwize

[edit]

A classic example of something made up in school one day. Scobell302 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I can find no evidence that he has ever released an album, and can certainly find no independent corroboration of the claims in the article. Users below assert that he has been written about in notable publications, but no links have been provided. If any of these references do show up, it's ok to recreate this. --- Deville (Talk) 07:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Love

[edit]

POV bio of a nonnotable person, per WP:BIO. Google search brings up nothing but blogs and myspace. Daniel Olsen 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6&oldid=1116878399"