Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

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 Speedy Delete G3 by User:Improv. ColourBurst 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex with legs

[edit]

This article is plain nonsense. Not notable person and is what I can consider spam. ResurgamII 20:01, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Guardian

[edit]

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 2,000,000, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 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. (aeropagitica) 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies

[edit]

An "accrediting" group from India that lacks WP:RS and WP:V information on what it is, has 116 yahoo hits (including wikipedia mirrors), and was created by Lord Eddington (talk · contribs) in Feb. did not make any other edits. There has been plenlty of chance for this to be verfied, but it only gets white washed. According to the article on Education in India, this group is not a recognized accreditor.) Arbusto 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[1]. Arbusto 02:34, 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. (aeropagitica) 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

[edit]

An unaccredited"school" that offers free courses, and charges for "admission fees." It brings up 149 yahoo hits, including wikipedia. Fails to meet notablity ot verfiablity. Article created by someone who made three edits. This is violates WP:AD and fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Arbusto 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What category? Arbusto 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep We generally keep articles on colleges, we often keep articles on diploma mill so that people can learn that they are diploma mills. I don't know if the commentor meant Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning or Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges, both of which are on the article, but that we have both says something about the degree to which such articles are kept. GRBerry 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We often keep notable diploma mills. This one has no notablity. Has anyone written about this place other than the creator of it? Arbusto 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete appears to be a just-about-verifiable but insignificant diploma mill. Absent evidence of notable "alumni" claiming status of degrees from here, we probably don't need to give it the oxygen of publicity (or indeed take on the inevitable headache of policing neutrality). Guy 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is nothing notable or verifable. I can set up this type of "school" and promote on wikipedia in a similiar way. No news sources, alumni, academic standing, accreditation, and so on. CaliEd 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be unaccredited, but it is very verifiable. Silensor 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it unaccredited? I originally sourced it that way in the article because I couldn't find proof it was. I have seen nothing from any source other than the founder and operator of the school. How is this wiki worthy? How many students attend? How many have graduated? What degrees are offered? Arbusto 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent reliable sources needed for verifiability. Without such sources, there's only two potential outcomes for the article: it has unverifiable promotional material for the school, or its used to included unverifiable attacks against it. Neither is acceptable. Currently we're using "source by omission", which means a Wikipedian (in violation of core policy) makes factual claims based on the *absense* of information. This is unacceptable. We can only state something (like say something is an "unaccredited school") if a reliable 3rd party sources has made such a statement. We can't do original research, without violating policy, which sadly we've done by labelling this "school" as we have. The reasons for deleting this, are somewhat similiar to the ones for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --Rob 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am surprised that there is no recognition or accredition in the country of origin, India. --Antorjal 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob. Nickieee 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is ongoing debate on this school which makes it very interesting to watch. From what I see the school has special accreditation with the Indian government. The information that some have brought makes this legit in my view. It can be verified very easily. Just contact the people in India rather than making spurious attacks. One may not like what they offer but it is not enough to remove the information. Looks like some have a personal axe to grind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.71.152 (talk • contribs) 28:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above "vote" was made by an anon. IP (207.160.71.152)[2], but linked the name "Pablo" (Note: That link went to the wikipedia article Pablo, not any user name)[3] to look like an established user. Probably the creator of this article/operator of the "school." Arbusto 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The school does not have "special accreditation." The "accreditor" is ran by the operator of the school, which is not verfied by any WP:RS. See School accreditation and look at India. It is not listed as an accreditor from the Department of India's Education system.[4] A non-notable diploma mill accredited by the operator of the school. This violates WP:AD and fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dylan 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[5]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. 45 unique Ghits out of 393, the vast majority of which directories and a few other sites picking up wiki content. Appears that the only reals source of info on the organisation is the trinitytheology.org, which we are obliged to discount as unreliable. For an on-line and distance learning course, Alexa rank in the 643thousandsth appears well below radar for notability in any event. The fact that it is unaccredited is not all that relevant. Ohconfucius 01:35, 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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K&Q

[edit]

Just a pub. Author claims the pub is unique because it has a laundrette in the basement and has bar billiards. Apparently this is not common in pubs nowadays, although I wonder where else I would find a bar to play this on. Utterly non-notable. Just like any of the other thousands of pubs in the UK. Delete.- Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Bar billiards is not played on a bar[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of Academic Excellence UK

[edit]

Unrecognized accreditor of diploma mills. Brings up 15 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Arbusto 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scofield Graduate School

[edit]

Unaccredited, no notablity asserted, and about 160 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V. (I created the original article.) Arbusto 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:27, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DawnOfMen

[edit]

Non-notable PC game; fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for its violations of the crystal ball policy and per nom. Sounds like a cool game. Write up an article when it's done and it has attained some notability (and reliable sources that we can use to write an article within the bounds of NPOV). Captainktainer * Talk 02:53, 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 (and rather speediable IMHO). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova Shamdil

[edit]

Non-notable THB 00:12, 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. Metamagician3000 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Bezdeda

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Though I have some doubts about the Slovaks. The lady who came second claims on her website that she would like to sing professionally. Er, so she is not and it is not what is supposed to happen when she graduates from school? And Tomas here does not seem to look at the first page of his website a lot (anymore?), there is someone there using it to offer special services and the ads on his page are doubtful too. But they have a contract, and they were 2nd and third, so I guess what is sauce for the goose ...--Pan Gerwazy 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BigHaz makes the good point that rules for notability ought to be similar across countries. I don't know a thing about Slovak singers or TV shows, but that's not a reason for me to oppose this article. This guy isn't very important, even in Slovakia, but Wikipedia with 1 million + articles has plenty of room even for those who fail to win Idol competitions on TV.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carweekly

[edit]

Non-notable, not a current website THB 00:23, 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. Sango123 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Šindlerová

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I'm not going to press the issue, but you could argue that a top ten finish in something like this passes the WP:BAND criterion of Has won or placed in a major music competition. That said, I know someone's bound to say that placing 10th isn't really "placing" in the proper sense of the word, but second in a nationwide comp could well be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is a good point. I missed that WP:BAND criterion and so it probably should apply to 2nd and 3rd (although in my own anti-Idol POV I disagree with that criterion for WP:BAND in the first place), and I agree withyou that 10th is dubious at best. Irongargoyle 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, how is it possible that two guys seem to have made fifth place in that Kazakh thing? Am I missing something, or is someone cooking the books to get them all in Wikipedia?--Pan Gerwazy 15:52, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11

[edit]

Article about a nonnotable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly ten libraries in the United States. [6] GabrielF 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no real content to merge with David Ray Griffin. --Hyperbole 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep in light of its publisher and unusually high Amazon rank. [7] #2,212 is really exceptionally high. Obviously, the article needs expansion, since it contains no content. --Hyperbole 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, controversy surrounding the book was noted in those articles, the were not book reviews. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A controversy is better than a review. --Striver 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now merged everything useful into the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation in anticipation of a "Delete" decision. CWC(talk) 16:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : Result from checkuser, "No malicous activity by this account"--Pussy Galore 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're gaming Amazon.com sales rank, by selling copies of the book among themselves. Withdrawing vote, though, as that sales rank is now less than 2000. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Brillante Publishing

[edit]

Example of a vanity press publisher, fails WP:CORP.

I am also nominating the following pages for being only notable in conjunction with this publisher:


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've deleted the article to clean up its history and then re-created it as a redirect to Mike Scully as suggested. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scully

[edit]

Non-notable and probable vanity page created by the same user who created Carweekly. There are others who have "Micahel Scully" webpages, but none which fit this biography. Jcam 00:55, 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. —Xyrael / 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 Minutes Ago

[edit]

This film seems to be non-notable. I can't find any information about release. Andrew Levine 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of any distribution. Search finds very little, mainly IMDB and Wikipedia. Fan-1967 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -AMK152 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film is notable for its structure. The director has decided to abandon the conventions of film-making and split the film into 11 minute segments. If any other film has a structure like this, I've certainly not heard of it. I don't know whether it has a distributor or not but I really don't see what that has to do with notability. There are many articles about films on Wikipedia that have not been distributed, many not even completed. I think we should be more interested in uniqueness rather than how many people have seen it. Mallanox 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splitting a movie into segments is hardly a groundbreaking innovation. In any event, a technical innovation still wouldn't make a film notable unless it had verifiably influenced more notable filmmakers. Andrew Levine 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Splittling a movie into exactly equal segments is incredibly unusual. Film making is as other artforms tend to be, organic. This is a complete departure. As a film student myself, I would expect to find a film that is organised in a unique way to be in an encyclopaedia. Also, how can a film made in 2006 be shown to have influenced anyone else? Are we to ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not really unusual at all. Playing around with time structure is one of the simplest student-film tropes. Dividing a movie into 11-minute segments of one shot each is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an independent or student filmmaker, even if nobody's done precisely that before. Besides, just doing something new without making any actual impact on filmmaking does not satisfy notability. Andrew Levine 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not a student film, this is an established director. Please refer me to a film on Wikipedia that is an example of a film split into equal segments. Unless there is another to be an example of such a film making type, the notability comes from the fact that there isn't another. I ask again, do we ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never said this was a student film, I said the concept is not far removed from the sort of thing student filmmakers would do. And it's not by an "established" director, but by a director who is not mentioned in any issues of the 72 film journals and entertainment news sources I searched on LexisNexis. There are countless films that play around with the structure of the narrative. And yes, as I said before, Wikipedia ignores an "innovative" film technique if it has not been the subject of imitation, influence, and critical examination. Recognition is what matters, not newness. It has to be recognized by the film community as unique. Andrew Levine 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As for specific films divided into segments of exactly equal length, there's Lumière and Company. Andrew Levine 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uniqueness is not notability. This film has perhaps one, but not the other. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an independent review of the film has been added to the article. Mallanox 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Borderline notability. In it's favor is the fact that its cast includes actors who have at least done other recognizable work and it got review from a serious film reviewer.Agne 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have any of these actors ever done significant work, though? The lead actor, Ian Michaels, only shows up as having held credited roles in a few other shorts - his only parts in significant movies and TV shows were bit parts like "Stoner #1" and "Guy in Chem Lab". Having a page on IMDB doesn't make an actor or a film notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, should wait until really notable to recreate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Synthetic Terror

[edit]

One sentence article about a non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly 37 libraries in the United States [10] GabrielF 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps more to the point is about 500 unique hits. Not that bad actually but certainly not 47K. Also please note that it is pretty much consensus that the note on notability that you cite is very much insufficient. See the working proposal WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No evidence that Amazon UK actually keeps it "in stock". Order time is 4-6 weeks, which doesn't sound like a book that's "in stock".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Style

[edit]

Probably a useful tool, but fails WP:SOFTWARE. Per the SourceForge category: "The existence of this category does not imply that any and every project (which as of December 2005 has reached 108,697) should be included here." Crystallina 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not a criterion for inclusion. Valrith 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whyever not? Popularity is an indication of notability. I actually found this deletion debate when looking to see what astyle's article looks like (there's a redirect there; make sure we get that too if this ends up deleted). The votes so far are "This is not SourceForge." Does that mean that all SourceForge projects are automatically excluded? If not, what is the criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and how is SourceForge relevant at all? Another vote is that "there's not enough for a real article." This article seems to have been created a month ago, and it's not surprising it's pretty sparse still. It's "not a significant development tool"? I'm not even sure what that means. What's significant in this context? Can someone point out a more popular or significant C++ pretty printer? Deleting this article won't offend me, but so far I don't really see any content to any of these votes. Compared to those statements, I think a statement that this is a popular tool is at least as relevant. -- Steven Fisher 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria that are used to determine if software is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia are laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. One of the main content principles is to have verifiability of article content via reliable secondary sources. That frequently isn't possible for things that fail the notability criteria. Something that is verifiable can be notable even if it's obscure and/or not popular. Similarly, something that is popular may or may not be notable. My comment that "Wikipedia is not Sourceforge" is only intended to point out the difference between the two sites - Sourceforge will accept any project no matter how insignificant (or even non-existent), while Wikipedia will not. Valrith 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the SF comment; I should have caught that. I've changed my vote (below). -- Steven Fisher 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete After reading Valrith's comments, I tend to agree with him. Merge doesn't seem necessary as there's already a mention of in in the Prettyprint article, with a brief description and link, which suffices until there's greater notability. -- Steven Fisher 19:21, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination Science

[edit]

Yet another barely notable conspiracy theory book article by User:Striver. This book is currently ranked #253,068 at Amazon.com. The article claims that the book "has been widely praised as a ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination studies", but the supporting link is the amazon.com page of ANOTHER book. GabrielF 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd love to hear what criterion of the cited guideline you think this book satisfies. Pascal.Tesson 06:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Show

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable wrestling show. Prod'ded twice, tags removed both times by author. No independent sources can be found to even verify its existence. ... discospinster talk 02:20, 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 his notability as an academic, even in the context of the controversy, has not been established by the comments -- Samir धर्म 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Woodward (psychologist)

[edit]

Completely non-notable academic. Only claim of notability is that he teaches that 9/11 is a US conspiracy in his psych classes. However, he fails the criteria at WP:PROF. This article was created as part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a zillion different non-notable conspiracy theorists and their books. Many of his articles have been deleted through AfD or are in the AfD process. GabrielF 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This point ought to be explained clearly somewhere for future reference. I often read the argument "this prof is notable because he edited a book". Now, as people familiar with academic circles can all confirm, this is very much commonplace and definitely not a sign of notability. Tons of conference proceedings or books gathering a series of articles on a given topic are published every year and all have two or three editors whose job is to run the peer-review process. This is an important task but it is a technical one and I have personally attended conferences in which the cited editors include students who were generous enough to help with that job. Bottom line is: being the author of a book published by a prestigious academic press is indication of notability, being the editor means that there are other academics who are grateful you volunteered for the job. Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counter comment any academic with 30+ years of university work has that much citations on scholar google. I got a university position two years ago and look [12]. Pascal.Tesson 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Counter Comment Write "Finite Minoid analysis of WTC destruction using a semigroup of homomorphistic rodents carrying explosives" and start filling in Pascal Tesson. A background in Cold fusion may help. Publish your theory in a blog so as not to attract peer review and don't make conspiracy accusations or BYU will suspend you. --Tbeatty 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I wrote that paper, Striver (talk · contribs) would fill in my entry. :-) Pascal.Tesson 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Academic achievements seem to be well under the bar for notability, but when you add in the controversy, can he squeak in? According to the article, he was singled out for fairly harsh criticism by the state's governor. IMO this debate should probably focus on whether the amount of controversy is notable, and not just on whether he's a notable academic (he's not). My Alt Account 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The interesting part of this article is the response that this person has engendered. Having a governor and senator calling for the end of tenure is quite notable. JASpencer 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete WP:PROF says in part "Similarly, an academic involved in significant current events is likely to be notable as a person under the general WP:BIO guidelines." I don't see adequate evidence that he meets WP:PROF without that sentence. The relevant part of WP:BIO is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" While we have two reliable independent sources, they appear to be a single day's news event. Thus, WP:BIO is not met. Failing both, deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF. Not a notable academic by Wikipedia standards. Number of citations on Google Scholar is low, and includes books he edited. And as Pascal Tesson points out above, editing a book is a far cry from writing a book (and there's no citations of authored books for Woodward here). Class controversy is not quite a storm in a teacup but is certainly not encyclopedically notable to justify an article on Woodward. Brief mention in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article would be ok. Bwithh 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep even if he was not notable as a scholar, wich i contest, the controversy that has made him cited in large newspapers alone makes him notable.--Striver 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep has recieved decent press coverage and has been published multiple times, I think that suits [[WP:BIO}}. . . --mathewguiver 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news database... and just about all academics get published multiple times (that's why we have WP:PROF).Bwithh 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my nomination of this article came across as being in bad faith, but that was not my intention. If you look at the 9/11 "Truth" Movement articles on wikipedia you'll see a gazillion stubs of people and books who are not notable. For example, books that are owned by fewer than forty libraries in the world, films that are released only on the web to almost no press coverage, individuals who have no claim to notability other than a few one sentence quotes in newspaper articles, etc. How could any of these articles ever become encyclopedic and NPOV? It is entirely reasonable for a user browsing this section of wikipedia to feel like we're promoting, legitimizing and popularizing complete nobodies who have a viewpoint many find offensive. I have no problem with Striver personally - his contributions to articles pertaining to Shi'a Islam seem to have been highly praised - but I don't want wikipedia to become a soapbox for every self-promoting nobody with an idea.
As for this specific article, please remember that we're talking about an academic who fails the "professor test" (i:e is not any more notable than the average professor). The only way this article might be encyclopedic is if the controversy is encyclopedic, but will anyone remember it a few months from now? Although it just started a week ago, a google news search for "William Woodward" reveals only 35 unique articles related to the controversy, with a number of these being very brief mentions, blog posts and letters to the editor. Nobody will remember this guy in a month. GabrielF 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Gamaleil--Pussy Galore 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned for trolling[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about teenage fun

[edit]

Kind of a nice idea, but "about teenage fun" is such a nebulous, subjective, elusive definition that this list will never be able to satisfy WP:V or WP:NPOV. I wouldn't mind a renaming if someone could come up with a way to satisfy those criteria. Dylan 02:35, 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 (see comment at the end). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mcilvaine

[edit]

Non-notable bio. Basically a relative of a 9/11 victim who believes 9/11 conspiracy theories. He gets all of 183 google hits (this is a mistake - see below) [16]. This is part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a gazillion non-notable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. GabrielF 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN coverage--Striver 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just added more news coverage of him. --Striver 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And more about his son... no way this article is going to be deleted now... --Striver 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So he's on a barely notable panel, may be featured in a non-notable movie and is one of thousands of 9/11 victim's families. That doesn't establish notability. In the articles that you mention he's generally one of several people quoted for a particular position. Further, I've been quoted in a handful of newspaper articles do, does that make me inherently notable? GabrielF 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN? Any international one? If yes, they you are also notable per WP:N: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"--Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue for notability due to extensive media coverage, add the links here to make yoru case, but don't clutter an already content-thin article with dozens of media "coverage" (which you seem to be doing often lately, btw). Artcles are not supposed to be collections of media coverage. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, I'm not sure you understand that what you're quoting is exactly why most people arguing for deletion believe that pretty much all the current references are useless. Primary subject means that the article is about McIlvaine. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above vote has been reported to ANI. Just FYI. --Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you just did that :-( Please reconsider that type of behavior, it does NOT help make AfD talk any more productive, it just wasted a lot of peoples' time and stirred up bad feelings. My Alt Account 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO --Doc 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sub-trivial conspiracist minutia. Tom Harrison Talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very Weak keep He isn't even that prominent in the 9/11 truth movement and most of these news mentions are minor but there are still a lot of mentions in the news. JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems he has become a celebrity victim, frequently called upon by the media for a nice soundbite. --Salix alba (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also, I vote "keep" as per: User:Striver.
    User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article. Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages?
    User:GabrielF, in initiating the AfD, originally stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits on google, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. How is someone who is mentioned in all of these reputable sources Non-notable? Travb (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment keyword here is mentioned. All these report on 9/11 families stuff a number of times a year. Some of them will have a quote of the form "bla says Mr. X whose wife died in the attack". So what? I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles. Pascal.Tesson 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should attempt to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Accusing others of POV [18] ?--zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response on your user page, I deleted the comments you are refering too. Travb (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. "I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles." What does the motor vehicles have to do with this article? Clever analogies do not prove your point, therefore the person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious at best, malicious at worst. Travb (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check my comment below - in a nutshell, the profusion of links at the bottom is basically fluff, with many of the links not mentioning the article's subject at all. Of the major news coverage, two give him 1-2 sentences of coverage, and only the MSNBC interview transcript has him as the primary subject of the coverage. In short, the links to "sources" at the bottom are misleading.My Alt Account 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cranks who get substantial media coverage. Who cares if he buys the conspiracy theory, that's not what this is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver - Glen 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per MONGO and nom. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From what I can tell, he hasn't actually been the subject of any of the articles, just a source. He also apparently hasn't done anything like founding an organization or some other thing that would make him of note. However, he does meet one of my personal criteria: Would somebody see his name in the news, wonder who the guy is, and come to Wikipedia to find out? I also disagree strongly with the notion that he couldn't be notable because of his opinions. William Pietri 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well actually it seems that anytime he's mentioned in the news it's always accompanied by "whose son..." so I think we're safe on that side! Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's been around for a year and therefore he is clearly not a sockpuppet created for this debate. He's obviously done enough edits that he probably knows a thing or two about wikipedia. My Alt Account 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When is the list of people coming out that believe that 9/11 was caused by islamic fundamentalist terrorists who flew planes into the towers, the pentagon, and intended to do more damage? Pseudotumor 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's been around for a month. If you think it's a sockpuppet account, say so, and provide some evidence. A real joke/sock account would look more like this: User:Wajwt
COMMENT Striver would like you to think that, but it really isn't true. If you look in detail at the many articles Striver mentioned you'll see that he is usually a tiny quote in a large article. The Independent article for example (not accessible online) contains SIX PAGES of rememberences from a number of people. The 3/5/2004 CNN article has a one sentence quote from McIlvane and he is one of four 9/11 family members quoted. I can't find the 3/18/05 CNN article but the selection quoted on the website Striver is using as a source doesn't mention Mcilvaine. The BBC article has a one sentence quote from him and he is one of six people quoted. The NYTimes article is a one sentence "Quote of the Day" feature and only says that he attended a 9/11 commission hearing. None of these are notable. GabrielF 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. The person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious. I would also like to bring up the fact that the person who initiated this AfD.[19] Did not follow the suggested guidelines of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate." Travb (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he he he. Apparently some believe that the answer is yes provided he's quoted 17 times. Pascal.Tesson 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user is a possible sockpuppet single purpose account. See contribs and talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ^^^ This user is failing to assume good faith. As I've already told GabrielF, either request a checkuser, or kindly withdraw your allegations.--Pussy Galore 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT : Pascal.Tesson, and Arthur Rubin, you may be interested in the result of the checkuser I instigated against myself. "No malicous activity by this account". I hope you will now have the decency to apologise for your lurid allegations--Pussy Galore 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the checkuser result states "the activity from your IP address is completely above-board" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ye, my mistake. I have disabled the RPC Locator service on my doze box, therefore leaving me unable to copy and paste. Many thanks for the clarification. --Pussy Galore 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly either a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or a long-time anon user. It doesn't matter which, except that only "he" could verify the latter, as the checkuser people wouldn't know which IP to check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment [Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. -- William Pietri] --Pussy Galore 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment There was a comment posted by myself which was removed from the above section by Arthur Rubin. It showed the flawed logic of the argument of Pascal.Tesson. I would reinstate it myself, but sadly lack the neccessary tools to do so. --Pussy Galore 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin hasn't removed anything of yours in this article. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to have removed a comment of yours. Others are welcome to review my edit and restore it if they think it's a useful contribution to the discussion. William Pietri 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sockpuppet is probably too strong a term. But I think single purpose account is a fair assessment and I have edited my above comment to reflect that. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: Even though the consensus was fairly clear on "delete", I need to say something, especially since I've crossed paths with Striver and I know I will again (if this AfD log is a significant sample). My idea is that if an article needs tens of sources just to prove that its subject is notable (and fails to do so in view of a majority of people in its AfD), then the subject is not notable enough. About this person in particular, I suggest looking at a similar example: Juan Carlos Blumberg. For a few months he was just a father who'd lost his son to criminals. Appeared dozens of times in TV and newspapers, but he wasn't notable, just one more of a series of victims, until he led a march demanding security which gathered 200,000 people. That is notable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 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 merge and redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. – [ælfəks] 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon's inspiration

[edit]

Delete. Looks like original research. Besides, I can't imagine anyone searching for "Joss Whedon's inspiration" on Wikipedia. Article was previously proposed for deletion (Nothing here that can't be said (preferably with references) in the Buffy article). ... discospinster talk 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Author removed AFD header. I put it back - Richfife 04:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twice - Richfife 04:57, 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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carcando

[edit]

Contested Prod. Company that started business yesterday. Can't find any sources on it at all, or any search hits for the name that seem even possibly relevant. Fails WP:CORP, WP:V. (When article was created, it said the company was registered September 6. When Prod'ed as "company which started doing business today" author changed the date to May 6, but has since changed it back to September. Fan-1967 02:56, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batphone

[edit]

The available information about a bat-phone is so minimal that it's hard to envision this article ever being more than a stub. It's an extraneous article that doesn't add to the value of the bat-phone, which is mentioned in the Batman Article. A mention from Nip/Tuck does not notable make. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:16, 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. —Xyrael / 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Allen Smith

[edit]

Nomination for Deletion A tragic story, but no encyclopedic notability is asserted, nor, I think, can it be asserted. There are thousands of new murder/non-negligent manslaughter investigations around the world every year, a large chunk of which go unsolved (in 2004, there were 16,137 cases in the United States, of which 62.6% were solved[21]). What makes this particular case so special? It happened on a cruise ship (so it got more media attention than the average killing because it reminds people of an Agatha Christie murder mystery), and it happened on the victim's honeymoon (an even better news story for readers or viewers relaxing at home). Plus the widow got upset with cruise line and caused a public relations crisis for them. That's about it. Even Taken separately from the investigation, none of the people involved are encyclopedically notable in their own right - they are not even notable on a local newspaper level. If the case was extraordinarily more horrible and infamous than the average or it led to some new law or change in police techniques or an important book - these effects would be encyclopedically notable. But it did not. Wikipedia is not a police records archive and it is not a news report database or an echo chamber for whatever the news media is reporting (much of which is not encyclopedically notable.). Bwithh 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Actually I did not claim that. I said that the people taken out of the context of the investigation (that is, if the disappearance/killing had never happened), those people would not be notable even on a local newspaper level. (my poor use of "Even" as a sentence starter may have beeen a little confusing but still I don't see how it leads to the claim that Pinkkeith says I made) The missing person/victim ran a liquor store with his father. And please note my emphasis of ENCYCLOPEDIC notablility - Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT a news report database. Again, newspapers, TV news shows, news websites - even ones with international scope and reputation (- carry much news (including news which is simply chosen for its sensationalistic qualities (Pinkkeith uses examples from MSNBC, CBS and CNN (Larry King Live!!) - US news networks are especially prone to sensationalism ) and non-news which is not encyclopedically notable. Media coverage is not sufficient cause for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you tell me why this story is encyclopedically important? or even, why is it notable for major channel news coverage beyond its sensationalistic qualities? Bwithh 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup I'm sure these lines from WP:BIO (which remember, as I'm always hear, is a guideline) will be tossed at my nomination:
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events - but George Allen Smith did not achieve any renown or notoriety from dying/disappearing. Renown/notoriety relate to the widely celebrated/honoured or denounced/dishonoured skills/traits/feats of a person. Doesn't make sense to apply here.
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. - I believe the key phrase here is non-trivial. I submit that the subject selection of some or even much news coverage, even in major channels, is trivial by encyclopedic standards. The guy disappeared or was killed during his honeymoon on a cruise ship... that's it. not exactly edifying. Bwithh 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the key word is "multiple". WP:BIO clearly states that "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage". Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make some very sound and reasonable arguements. You are deleting this article based on notability of the individual. The real question is what makes one notable and what doesn't. It is all opinonated in my eyes, even the word "trivial" is an opinonated term. There are many articles that are based on information taken from media reports, Steve Irwin being the most notable and recent example. I don't think that what the source is and what the readers opinon of the source ought to be grounds to delete an article. In my eyes, if a story is reported by multiple national sources, it makes it notable. I would like to withdrawl my vote to keep and vote neutral on this nomination. I think it is notable but it is boarderline. --Pinkkeith 11:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because the media reports it (because they choose to endlessly milk every mile out of tearjerkers rather than newsworthy stories say about genocide in the Sudan, or war in Uganda, or u.s. troops building schoolhouses and repairing sewers in Iraq) , doesn't make it or the person involved notable. Like JonBenet Ramsey (who was 1 of like 6000 girls gone missing and killed in 1996), George Allen Smith's death might be regrettable and worth mourning, but he's one of tens of thousands...he's a mere statistic and despite the sensationalist hype, he won't amount to much more than a statistic. Therefore, delete. —ExplorerCDT 06:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize of course with ExplorerCDT's view of the JonBenet case though I would also note that that case generated a substantial cultural criticism (still sensationalist) discourse which led to JonBenet being used (justifiably or not) as an icon of the ills of American society. This probably generated enough material for encyclopedic notability (one could argue that JonBenet is related to certain trends in US cultural commentary) - but in any case, far far more material than has been generated there than for the George Allen Smith case. I don't see how the Smith case has much potential at all for JonBenetesque commentary - the decline of morals in international waters? the crime rate on cruise ships? Bwithh 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Media circus \= encyclopedic notability (how do you type "does not equal"?). (Just a comment on JonBenet which ExplorerCDT brought up--perhaps that's different because her death engendered widespread discussion on kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh notes, pertains to wider cultural trends.) Pan Dan 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The story is a sad but intriguing one. However, the article is full of speculation and conjecture, and thus is not encyclopaedic. If you laid out the pertinent facts end to end, you are down to about five lines:
  1. Mr Smith disappeared on his honeymoon cruise.
  2. Mr and Mrs Smith had an argument during the night of his disappearance
  3. Blood was found in the couple's cabin and foul play is suspected
  4. Mrs Smith received undisclosed settlement from the cruise company
  5. Mr Smith's body was never found
An article on the wife would make a more interesting choice. At least there's the potential to flesh out or for her to become known for something else. Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: "51,000 Google hits." If you actually click through, you see that there are only 182 hits, and then it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 182 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." I guess that means there are only 182 unique Google hits. Pan Dan 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Most of the "51,000" hits are either regenerations of blog entries or AP-wire postings. Keeping it based on the churning of the same story over and over again is specious at best. Also, doesn't this violate Wikipedia's policy on memorials? —ExplorerCDT 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Google hits were not the only reason I voted to keep. The story was covered, as said above, by Larry King, MSNBC, CNN, etc. The guy clearly passes WP:BIO, whether we like it or not.--Cúchullain t/c 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are plenty of trivial (both encyclopedically and/or in general) trivial news stories on Larry King, MSNBC, CNN etc. WP:BIO is a guideline which calls for non-trivial coverage of people or that the person has renown or notoriety. As I have argued above, Allen doesn't fit into either requirementBwithh 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he achieved plenty of notoriety through the media coverage, nor do I find the references non-trivial, however much I wish the media's time had been focused elsewhere.--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I don't think it's right to say he achieved "notoriety." According to dictionary.com, "notorious" means
1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler.
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.
I don't think either of these applies to Smith. Neither does "renown" (also mentioned in WP:BIO), which means "widespread and high repute; fame." Pan Dan 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what "notoriety" means. I've said my piece already. --Cúchullain t/c 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the dictionary definition because I think it supports the thesis that Smith is not "notorious." Wasn't suggesting you don't know what it means. (Nor am I now suggesting that you were suggesting that I was suggesting that you don't know what it means.) Pan Dan 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Pan Dan 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now we have that cleared up. ;)--Cúchullain t/c 00:06, 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 speedily deleted by DVD R W under CSD G1. MER-C 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellguard99

[edit]

'Net nonsense, vanity article, no redeeming value Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:35, 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 redirect to Soulfly (album). - Bobet 23:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbklatt

[edit]

Non-notable THB 03:41, 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. As said, '"new and growing sport" automatically implies a lack of notability.' —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Live

[edit]

Ad, no evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* i say keep it. It is a good summary of a growing sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.186.171 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm the author of the article, considering Battlefield Live is a new and growing sport, I am unable to give references that aren't primarily about the equipment and perks of the sport, which, if I linked or provided, could be misconstrued as advertising, I'm able to give references from the actual company who originally created the game system, but again, it could be considered advertising or generally biased, please advise me how to proceed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjuroDP (talk • contribs)
  • I've added the references section to this article in hopes of saving it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjuroDP (talk • contribs)
  • Comment "new and growing sport" automatically implies a lack of notability. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added new 2 new references, one of which to counter "Notability" debate, will also add external links soon linking various official Television and News coverage on Battlefield Live in hopes of ending the question of prominance on Battlefield Live.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun and Hezbollah: From terrorists to political parties

[edit]

Appears to be some essay-like comparison between Irgun, Lehi, and Hezbollah. The article is unencyclopedic and in my opinion rather pointless. —Khoikhoi 04:10, 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 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRAEDO

[edit]

Non-notable. Does not appear to have members. THB 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Re-checking (I don't know what I did wrong before), I see that craedo coalition has < 50 ghits. And searching for just craedo gets 150 unique ghits. Pan Dan 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any business or organization can join the Vancouver Board of Trade. That in itself does not lend legitimacy (or notability). -THB 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the funniest way of stating it I ever read. Thanks for brightening up my day! -THB 16:45, 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 speedy delete, as per nomination. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cole

[edit]

Article doesn't not assert notability of subject; article also doesn't cite sources. Bumm13 04:37, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006

[edit]

Do I really need to explain? Monthly results pages are not needed TJ Spyke 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I am also adding:[reply]

  • Delete I appreciate this is someone's hard work, but good grief imagine if every "sporting" code on Wikipedia had a new page each dedicated to a monthly update - it would be a nightmare! Thats why we dont do it, sorry - Glen 05:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Fancruft. RobJ1981 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, How is this different from an episode guide for a TV series? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Numerous television series have articles for every episode on Wikipedia. Impact is a television series, and should thus be treated similarly. McPhail 11:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously torn I wrote almost all of these. In a way, it's fancruft. Yet also, it keeps in line with episode guides that are permitted for television shows. I don't know what to do. --Kitch 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize. I like the seasonal layout, cf. Episodes of Lost (season 1) et al. - Trevyn 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Fancruft, as the main author has admitted - not suitable for an encyclopedia. I recomment to User:Kitch and other authors that they move the content to their own wiki at Wikia, so they don't have to feel that their work is simply going to waste. Bwithh 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Total fancruft for a second-rate wrestling promotion. Renosecond 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to have to vote Keep all & reorganize here. This is a useful resource for someone who wants to look into the history of the show, and as someone pointed out above it really isn't any different than all the TV shows that have articles on individual episodes. Author should find a way to source the articles, however, even if it means simply listing the episode in question as a source. VegaDark 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: big wrestling fan, big TNA fan. But... Delete - this is taking things pretty far in considering that this is an encyclopedia. Consider that these results are pre-scripted each week, unlike other sports, and the storylines in pro wrestling are far less deep than other television shows, and I think the need for constant and continuous tracking of results in an encyclopedia is very slim. Episodes of shows like Lost, etc., have long-running and deep storylines that might be hard to track, and it would make sense to have a summary available (though if they came up, I'd opt for deleting those too, as I think that's kind of silly to include in an encyclopedia). Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Yes, people, I'm sure wrestling is a fine sport and all, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a wrestling fanzine. Aren't there specialist wikis for such content? Sandstein 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glen has a point, what would happen if there were articles like "NBA results, December 2005" and "NFL results, September 2005"? It's just too much. TJ Spyke 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly have trouble understanding the concept of an encyclopedia that wants to exclude knowledge of this depth just because it can. Yes, it's fairly trivial knowledge, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge, but these articles are not an indiscriminate collection--they're nicely organized, formatted and compartmentalized, and will only get more so as they live on. Even Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia mentions the word's origin as "the idea of collecting all of the world's knowledge into a single work". M-W says it's "a comprehensive reference work". Why limit ourselves to the length encyclopedias have been in the past? If Wikipedia isn't meant to be a true encyclopedia, then that's fine too, but I haven't seen the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia page yet. -- Trevyn 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is not indiscriminate information merge is fine too Yuckfoo 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was not my initial reaction, but upon consideration: regardless of whether you look at this as "sporting results" or as "television episodes", deleting these would leave a large number of articles behind which are no more notable or encyclopedic. I can't seem to find even a proposed policy on TV episode notability - I think it would be best to try to hash one out before singling out articles for deletion whilst plenty of other articles on episodes of TV shows I've never heard of remain. --Stormie 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Edgecution 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, TV episode guides per Stormie, Trevyn etc. Merging would also be fine, as would splitting the article into separate pages for each bout. Kappa 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Seperate pages for each bout would be a total nightmare if it becomes policy. Take WWE for example: 3 shows a week, average 3-6 matches per show. That's a potential 18 new articles per week now let's take this back over several years. I'm also abstaining from the vote as I am suffering a conflict of conscience between episode guide and listcruft. –– Lid(Talk) 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some TV shows do not need articles for episodes, I doubt anyone would support creating articles for individual episodes of news shows or Monday Night Football games for example. Several non-notable episodes of Raw have had articles delete here or in the process of deletion(Raw Roulette and Raw Bowl for example). TJ Spyke 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Or at least move it to a wrestling oriented Wiki. Someone obviously spent a lot of time working on this, and it is well organized, I'd hate to see such dedication deleted. And besides, monthly results for pro wrestling is a pretty good idea to me.-User:Gruntyking117

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kulturmax Multimedia

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 05:07, 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. An article could theoretically be written at this title, exploring the role of women within Star Trek, but this is essentially contentless.--SB | T 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Star Trek

[edit]

Nothing here is not adequately covered in List of Star Trek characters. As it stands, the article reads like listcruft, Star Trek cruft, etc. Crystallina 05:07, 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. Sango123 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst for Birmingham

[edit]

Originally tagged as a copyvio from the group's website, but apparently permission has been received to post this. Unsurprisingly, the text is unformatted and reads like ad copy. Group gets 1240 Google hits, and we're #1. Opabinia regalis 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't have an article for the Atlanta Social Syndicate (yes, it spells "ass") bceause they're non-notable, and we shouldn't have one for this equally-non-notable group. Unencyclopaedic self-promotion/advertisement. DELETE —ExplorerCDT 06:55, 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 speedy delete as copyvio. Metamagician3000 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Outreach Opportunity League (C.O.O.L.)

[edit]

Clear copyvio (and labeled as such by creator, actually), and I was intially going to simply speedy delete it as copyvio. However, I am not sure how significant this organization is. Unless the opinion is that it's acutally notable and the article is rewritten to remove copyright infringement, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:25, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factorgram

[edit]

Non-Notable Portmanteau apparently invented by author. This link: [26] strongly suggests he has an agenda. The term pops up here and there being used to mean other things. Richfife 05:37, 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, and I'll redirect it to Bewick's Wren as suggested (note that you don't have to wait for an AfD to merge and/or redirect an article). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle wren

[edit]

Source seems to ne news item; subspecies almost certainly the Vancouver/Seattle area pupolation described as Thryomanes bewickii ariborius Oberholser, 1920 Original description, but "Birds of North America Online" cites Phillips, A. R. (1986): The known birds of North and Middle America. Part I: Hirundinidae to Mimidae; Cerciidae (A. R. Phillips, Denver, CO) as source for considering it invalid. Not recognized by AOU. Could have been recently resurrected as valid subspecies, but unlikely given Bewick's Wren subspeciation pattern. Dysmorodrepanis 05:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - there is not much to merge, and I will add the information on the Bewick's page. Dysmorodrepanis 09:53, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imediabiz

[edit]

Non notable company. Prod removed. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:51, 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. Copyvio. -- Steel 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecliptical Realms

[edit]

WP:WEB, nn gaming group. As a side note, User:Krayt88 recently went on a spamming rampage, adding this site to about a half dozen external link sections. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:52, 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, due to lack of participation and necessary discussion of Evrik's sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robeks

[edit]

Hardly of encyclopedic interest. Most certainly does not meet WP:CORP. The article was clearly created as spam although that content has thankfully already been flushed out. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/05/22/daily60.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_18_28/ai_n16419168

--evrik 18:03, 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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:40, 12 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and self withdrawal. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mako of Akishino

[edit]

Not inheritley notale, makes no claim to be notable just royal cruft. (I'm also nominating Princess Mako of Akishino) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 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 keep (in some form). No valid arguments for delete apart from the nomination, and redirection is governed by the normal workings of consensus, not AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NonProductive

[edit]

Not Notable —ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended this article for deletion as this is a not notable radio program on WRSU at Rutgers University and isn't really known outside the Rutgers University community. Heck, I graduated there and knew one of the hosts during my years "on the banks" and didn't even know it existed until the creator of this article tried to add a link to this article from the Rutgers article. This article does not meet the notability guidelines/policies. Furthermore, suspecting that the creator of this article is somehow involved in the program, this meets the guideline under WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, self-promotion, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not google and this article might fall under the categorisation of Vanispamcruftisement. At best, this article's content should be condensed and merged with WRSU, and this article deleted.—ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for the content needs to be retained per GFDL, so if content is merged, you cannot delete the edit history. Besides, why not redirect so readers who search for this end up at the place where the article is? - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It may not be surprising, but my reasoning is for keep, and I’ll explain why. The article is notable as the subject has aired consistently over the past 10 years with approximately 500 shows. There are many shows that have aired more and many that have aired less, but I’d like to suggest that there is a large enough presence to justify the need for an article. There is the notion that this is a vanity/promotion page – which is perfectly understandable, but I believe may be merely a gut reaction. During the show’s 10 year run it has had a rotating panel of hosts, none of which are still involved with the show after their term, and dozens of cast members who likewise graduate to new projects unrelated to the program. While this may not eliminate the fear of vanity page, I believe this weakens the idea that anyone would benefit greatly by using this for self-promotion or narcissism. While I have been the heaviest contributor to the article so far (also reasonably taken as evidence of non notability) we should take into consideration that the article is new, the show is about begin its newest season, and that more edits and searches by Wikipedians should be expected in the coming months (assuming no one is dissuaded to “waste their time” on an article marked for deletion). Some of those who have commented for deletion have remarked that it is unlikely that anyone knows about the show outside the Rutgers Community, and that they themselves haven’t heard of it until after graduation or being pointed directly to it. While that may seem like a logical argument for deletion, we are all aware that there are numerous articles on subjects we were not personally aware of – and that personal non-notability does not translate over the universal non-notability. Also, many years have passed since the nominator may have been peripherally aware of the show, and as such it has expanded considerably and become far more popular under the control of subsequent hosts. With regard to the idea that few outside Rutgers would be aware of the show, please note the number of articles depicting campus life elements that have become popularized throughout the state and country (i.e. Grease Trucks) - while this precedent does not make for a solid rule of inclusion, it hopefully will encourage others to think twice before marking for deletion based on a “potential lack of public knowledge as interpreted by personal experience”. Finally, while merging and redirecting with WRSU is an understandable alternative to deletion, I feel it would only serve to divert attention from the other aspects of the radio station – which is far more then a paragraph on broadcast range and three paragraphs on just one of their many shows.

Aside from rebutting the argument for deletion, I would like to make another argument for keep. The nature of the collegiate setting makes for a constantly rotating student body, which has experienced 10 graduating classes since the premiere of the show. As a result, no one currently involved with the show, and few people who currently listen to the show, were around for the history of the series. Incoming freshmen were eight years old when the show premiered, and are unlikely to have been fans from the start. It is for these people (who will undoubtedly use the popular free encyclopedia to discover more about the show) that the article was written – to do exactly what Wikipedia articles are designed to do – inform and educate the masses.

When reviewing articles for deletion me must be positive in outlook, not merely assume the worse. The negative assumption here is that the article will be useless to any Wikipedian and that it could only serve to promote those behind it – the positive assumption is that it is a neutrally drafted article that contains information that may be useful to individuals curious enough to research a program that is new to them.

Of course, you are all free to make up your own minds as you see fit. Good luck! ParticularlyEvil 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, perhaps unintentionally, your use of quotation marks imply that I stated "maybe these people will be interested to find out more and then this show will become notable...” These were never my words, but merely your interpretations of my words.

The argument is not circular, predictive, nor begging for a special exception for this article. Nor does it admit it whole or in part that the article should be deleted/redirected or anything short of kept. I rebutted your opinions and stated my own interpretation on them. Furthermore, if you feel running off a list of logical fallacies backs up you argument, then I suppose your comment was worthwhile to you.

It is clear your vote remains with delete, which I respect, and mine remains with keep, which I hope you will respect in kind. Rather then keep the momentum this has developed as a debate between two users, I think it is best to sit back and let others voice their opinions with both our standpoints here to look upon. I would like to see if the article will survive on its own merits. ParticularlyEvil 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhopper78 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)I'd like to add my two cents here. Once again, full disclosure; I am one of the people mentioned as a member of the Non-Productive show cast in the article. I was not a contributor to the wiki article, but heard about it through another party. I vote that the article be kept. I disagree with the notion that the show is non-notable. I was part of the show's early cast and crew. After graduation, I lost contact with the show and had assumed that the show no longer existed. In the not-too-distant past, I learned that the show was alive and well, having passed through the hands of many different hosts, cast members and crew throughout the years. Non-Productive has now been a part of the Rutgers community for approximately a decade, and it appears to have picked up enough self-sustaining steam to remain a part of that community for well beyond the forseeable future. It is, has been, and will be the result of the combined efforts of a wide spectrum of diverse contributors and will continue to an assest to the local community for a long time to come. It does not nor has ever required any outside promotion, and I do not believe that the article was written in that vein. Rather, I interpret the article (ackowledged to still be in its infant form) to be a growing record of this collaborative effort.[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brandon (porn star)

[edit]

Article is about a living person. Brandon probably qualifies for an article, as he won "Gay Performer of the Year" at the GayVN Awards in 2002 and 2003 (when he tied with Colton Ford), but this is less than a stub, and is sourced only via IMDB; the entry there reads like a fan wrote it. —Chidom talk  06:56, 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. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Chihuahua

[edit]

Website with no evidence of passing WP:WEB; no Alexa rank, only 104 unique GHits for "Purple Chihuahua", very few seem relevant (most are related to plush toys and the like). Failed prod. ~Matticus TC 07:06, 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, copyvio. Guy 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang (song)

[edit]

Speedy delete. No notability asserted. Songs are not notable by default per WP:SONG. Ohconfucius 07:49, 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 redirect (already done). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague

[edit]

just a definition and wiktionary already has the definition Goldenrowley 08:00, 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. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jogocyde

[edit]

Non-notable fictional narcotic featured in a RPG which doesn't have its own article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:02, 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 and redirect to Steve Irwin - created by sockpuppet of banned user Universe Daily per evidence. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi Irwin

[edit]

Daughter of Steve Irwin. Not yet notable I@n 08:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a perfect argument for redirect. She's notable soly for her father. According to this user. -Mask 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable enough as she is, and getting more and more attention every day. She's listed as support crew and have her own pages at crocodilehunter.com, she's been on several other TV series and Stevo was actually filming stuff for her series when he died, And she wasn't born onto TV, she was born on TV, since Stevo decided to bring the entire crew along (met by Terry's "you didn't think you could find any more people to bring in here?"). So she isn't just known for being Stevo's daughter, she's known for being Bindi Irwin. Hdw 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is noteable enough anyway (though barely) and Steve just boosts that. - Blood red sandman 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE KEEP She was just set to create her own wildlife show on the discovery kids channel, how could she not stay?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.195.118 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 September 2006.
  • STRONG KEEP! Bindi Irwin is already a well known and discussed person and will be even more now her famous father has passed away. She'll follow the footsteps of Steve Irwin, in fact she already does. We need her and this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.40.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep As per VoldemortI elliot 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Voldemort. -Mask 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant merge She's definitely worthy of a mention, and I reckon she's almost certainly going to be notable in her own right one day, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andjam 00:41, 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 vanity spam, already userfied. Guy 12:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futura Technologies

[edit]

Contested prod that is spam. A copy of this page is available at User:Futura Technologies, related MFD debate is here. MER-C 08:09, 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 deleted as unverifiable nonsense. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie West

[edit]

Was tagged as speedy, but this article is far from nonsense (the previous reason it was deleted. Probably unverifiable still, but not speedy worthy. Procedural nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's subtle nonsense. A google result of any kind would've easily supported any of the notions but it's all a big prank. –– Lid(Talk) 09:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - can't find anything on Google for the woman or the book. BTLizard 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with great haste! Vanity entry most likely. Dismas|(talk) 10:10, 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 redirect, and it was too generous. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Houston

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 09:04, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronil

[edit]

This isn't a baby name encyclopedia. Duran 09:12, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokejungle.net

[edit]

No evidence of passing any of the points of WP:WEB; despite being a reasonably well-constructed new article, there's a lot of unverifiable information here (no third-party sources to confirm). Deprodded with comments on article's talk page and listing for AfD per that discussion. ~Matticus TC 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me tonight to cite some sources, as I'm in Japan and rather busy. There are verifiable sources, and I'll be editing the page with them shortly. Thanks! BlackxxJapan 09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Note that I have no prejudice against the site as such; but claims to notability like ~3000 visitors a day or references on international blogs and image boards are simply inadequate in the absence of awards or published references. My own homepage gets more visitors than that and has also been referred to on a number of international blogs and forums, but if anyone created an article on it, I would nominate it for deletion myself. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haeleth mentioned non-cited sources, but sourcings to the foriegn sites and a stat tracking page for pokejungle.net have been provided to give published accounts to the claims. More coming soon, like I said, I'm pretty busy at the moment so please be patient. This article is simply "Under Construction" and not finished yet. I think there might be a page header I'm supposed to put up, but I honestly don't know. BlackxxJapan 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, primary sources (as in the subject of the article) cannot be used to verify information (they're not neutral, and WP:NPOV is one of the central policies of Wikipedia.) Blogs and forums cannot be used to verify information either, they're not reliable. "Under construction" is not an excuse because we're supposed to place things on Wikipedia only after they're established, not before. That being said, the site design looks clean and I hope you keep up the good work, but Wikipedia is not a web directory. ColourBurst 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My site is established...the article is still in the rough though. And forums/blogs ARE reliable if you're claiming to have been sourced on international sites, such as forums or blogs. Do you want a newspaper sourced when you're talking about blogs? That is ridiculous. "International blog" I source a blog, which thouroughly verifies the claim that it was sourced in an "international blog". And the hits were definitely sourced by a third party script that's built soley to accurately track stats. And I realize this isn't a website directory, but it is a user-based article compilation on all subjects and matters. I think that if an article is well written, it documents what it needs to, AND I can finish sourcing everything, it should be fine. The Wikipedia's gotten a bit too strict on 'what qualifies' as far as articles go. If there's information to document, and (a) good writer(s), then what's the problem? Is this article degrading to the Wikipedia? BlackxxJapan 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read WP:RS. "Reliable" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Blogs and web forums are not reliable under the criteria. Wikipedia hasn't "gotten" too strict, the policy's been in since day 1 (since WP:RS derives from WP:V, which is a derivative of WP:NPOV, which is the very foundation of this site and non-negotiable.) ColourBurst 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JustRHYMES

[edit]

Website the fails WP:WEB with no alexa ranking at all. 22 google results total and the article was created by User:justrhymes so possibly qualified as WP:Vanity –– Lid(Talk) 09:23, 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 Delete as lacking even the tiniest shred of evidence of meeting any realistic inclusion guideline. Guy 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReplaceFacebook

[edit]

Self-referential, trying to promote new project created in the last 1-2 days. Not notable yet. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K&Q

[edit]

Just a pub. Author claims the pub is unique because it has a laundrette in the basement and has bar billiards. Apparently this is not common in pubs nowadays, although I wonder where else I would find a bar to play this on. Utterly non-notable. Just like any of the other thousands of pubs in the UK. Delete.- Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Bar billiards is not played on a bar[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software for engineers

[edit]

If this list were anywhere near complete, it would be staggeringly huge. More detailed categories already exist, and are self-maintaining. Trevyn 10:28, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Art Club

[edit]

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [33] — NMChico24 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, perceived importance by person who removed the prod is not reflected in any articles or references. Currently just a university club without much outside influence Fram 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please refer to http://www.upenn.edu/pip/?pip=artclub, in relation to the significance of the club for Penn and for broader society. This reference, which was one the front page of Penn's website for over three months, reflects the importance of the club and the movement it has the potential to start among college campuses throughout the country. The club demonstrates that college students need not take art classes to be artists in college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Reply: this is the article in whch the club presents itself. That it was linked from the homepage of the University isn't strange at all and does not indicate anything but that the club exists (which no one doubted). We have no outside articles about the club, and the potential it has is a case of WP:NOT a crystal ball. When some national publication comments that the current revival of art by non-artists started in Penn Art Club, you can restart the article. Until then, it is not important enough to include in this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
      • The story about the Penn Art Club was not simply a link to the site, it was a featured story. While the story about Penn Art Club was featured, other--equally as significant--stories ran: such as discoveries in blot clott physiology, uncovering of ancient tombs in Egypt, new initiatives of the University, abd breakthrough research on the relation of the brain to the eye. "Doesn't indicate anything but that the club exists"--every club is linked to on the clubs page, but no other had a story on the front page. Penn Art Club embodies a novel movement, an intellectual progression towards academic freedom in the sense that, indeed, universities not only produce knowledge and truth, but also contribute to the health of democracy. As Paul Lazarsfeld would note, this article is an example of a solution to a fundamental "ill-structured" problem in colleges across the country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, copyright violation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbeam school

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as non-notable school (as if such a thing could possibly exist!) actually this is part copyvio, part advert. It either needs rapid and aggressive cleanup, or it needs deletion. Guy 11:40, 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. Sango123 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Pail Kids (animated series)

[edit]

A series which never aired, was bootlegged a bit, but there really is no credible evidence of any real audience, and most of it is almost certainly OR for the same reason. Guy 11:50, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Creasey

[edit]

Not notable person, possible vanity article. Google results consists of his name showing up in a names directory, and his MySpace page. Author has deleted {{db-bio}} twice and {{prod}} once TexMurphy 12:33, 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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Finish Line with Jerry and the Shot Doctor

[edit]

Non-notable radio sports program, one of thousands. The Shot Doctor, which has basically the same text, is a AfD now and is running 14-0 in favor of Delete. Herostratus 12:43, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry O'Neill

[edit]

Unremarkable American radio talking head, one of many thousands. Herostratus 12:48, 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 MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lopes

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:07, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonia (band)

[edit]

Delete Non-notable band does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:14, 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 MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar. Herostratus 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Brauckmeyer

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep passes WP:BIO. Kappa 06:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Josten

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep passes WP:BIO. Kappa 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:41, 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 MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nektarios Bamiatzis

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep passes WP:BIO. Kappa 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:42, 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 MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Ord

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:24, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Frommberger

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:30, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyTrack

[edit]

Fan-created playstyle for Unreal Tournament (if the links tell me correctly); not notable. I would've used prod on this but a notability tag was already removed, seemed likely prod would have been too. Crystallina 13:36, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Woodard

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:35, 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, as it should've been before. This is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

[edit]

Dicdef. This is the third time this article has been created, and it should be deleted for the same reason it was the other two times. Marnanel 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is different from the other article which was just a simple dictionary definintion but seems to meet the "Ideally this would redirect or disambig to something about saluations in letter writing" comment from the previous AfD.

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what happened?

This should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear (2)" or something like that and not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear/2 other one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WPdian editors, or Orwellian policeman--just kidding!!!

However, I do think that it certainly requires Disambiguation. Also, the fact--the reality--is that WP have made Wikipedia into a dictionary--it is a dictionary de facto, if not de jure. I'm fully aware that the WP policy is that WP is an Encyclopedia, or should I say Encyclopaedia? Yours truly Ludvikus 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if you dear--not deer--Wikipedians elect to retain it, I think you will not a choice but to do the same with yours truly, or yous truly!
Ludvikus 14:37, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi Awosogba

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge or keep, passes WP:BIO. If there isn't any important information which is worth it to be merged, it can be redirected. 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. Merge if the info isn't there yet. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 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 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007

[edit]

This breaks crystal ball in that "proposed" "predicted" "could" and "maybe" all appear throughout the article. There is no leadership election planned, there is no resignation proposed, there is nothing but continued media predictions and crystal balling. This article breaks the policy on events which have not been officially timetabled to occur doktorb wordsdeeds 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But the latter two you quote are scheduled event which are certain to occur. This event is speculated. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like Next United Kingdom general election, the only thing that's speculated is the dates. The only way that there won't be a contest is if no one stands against the only declared candidate, John McDonnell. How likely is that? Hera1187 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually John McDonnel would need 44 MPs, although he - or someone other than Brown - will get it. JASpencer 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy Keep This is one of the most important news stories in the UK at the moment. It is now a FACT that this contest will take place, and it WILL take place within the next year. Seivad 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This contest was always going to take place at some point in the future. That was never an issue. The problem is, this article assumes the leadership contest will take place in 2007. Tony Blair has said the he will step down in the next 12 months. Now, he could either a) Step down tomorrow. This would mean that the leadership election would take place in 2006, or b) decide to continue on as PM. He has said he will only resign if the timing is right for the country. Therefore, he still could remain Labour party leader after 2007. And that is the problem with looking into the crystal ball. If the page could be moved to a name like, Upcoming Labour Party (UK) leadership election, a lot of problems with crystal balling would be solved. Thε Halo Θ 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In which case we should be looking at where (or if) to move the page, not whether to delete it. Js farrar 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs Hera1187 pointed out, there must be a contest, and if the problem is with the name of the article speculating on dates, (which is likely to be accurate speculation anyway) that doesn't constitute a case for deletion.Greg Stevens 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hera1187. --Pinkkeith 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think there's anything gained by moving it to another name. If the date changes, then the article can change to reflect that. The alternative is, what, a growing section within the already-long Tony Blair? Also, I assume that the nomination was for crystall ball violations rather than "complete bollocks". Crystall ball says "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented", and that's certainly easily met. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There will be a leadership election, it's just a question of whether it's in 2006 or 2007. If he resigns in the next two months change the title. JASpencer 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here we go "question" "whether" "if".... this is speculation. It is only "well documented" because it is currently a media led story - the actual contest has not been called. The actual event has not been started. There is just speculation - and that breaks current policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article will contain too much crystal-ballism until we have a set date and more than one announced candidate. I also point to the entry for 26 July 2007 under 'future milestones as to why. ([34]) - "The last day of Tony Blair as Prime Minister". Currently, the article is only feasible for such displays of crystal-ballism. Delete and restart closer to the time, when we, at the very minimum, have a set date. Railwayman 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. People should read Wikipedia, she ain't a crystal ball before invoking it. WilyD 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. In particular, it states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", and both of these criteria are clearly met. It also says "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics", and it is not such a thing. Finally it states "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and...inappropriate", but it does not present those things: it merely states the dates which have either been put forward or been speculated about by politicians or the media; there is no original research. OK, saying "The last day of Tony Blair as Prime Minister" doesn't conform to the conditions, but that's just an anomolous statement which needs rewording, and is unrepresentative of the rest of the artcle, so certainly isn't cause for its deletion.Greg Stevens 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, individual sentences can be excised, but that's not really an issue for AfD. Otherwise, WP:NOT goes out of it's way to say Events widely anticipated and at least somewhat planned for are not violations of Crystal Ball. Significant press coverage of upcoming leadership convention means a Wiki article is appropriate. We even have a template for this kind of article, for instance at the top of Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, another planned leadership convention. WilyD 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOT. The leadership election is almost a certainty to take place,even if Blair hands the leadership on a plate to Brown, the latter will still seek ratification. WP:NOT cites that the 2008 U.S. presidential election, would be an appropriate subject. Ohconfucius 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Greg Stevens 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC). Blair has said that he will leave office before the 2007 Labour Party Conference, which makes it likely with a probability approaching 1 that there will be a 2007 Labour Party leadership election. Js farrar 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that's not a criterion for a speedy keep. WilyD 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it does reference the deletion policy which states that "if a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period". Now, I'm not sure whether or not this applies to this case, but it seems clear to me which way consensus on this discussion is going to fall. There'salso only been one "delete" vote since Blair's speech yesterday. Js farrar 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the most ludicrous deletion requests I've seen. Clearly an important future event; just needs to avoid the usual unsourced speculation. --EddieBernard 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment' And with all due respect, that sounds like an uncivil personal insult against me doktorb wordsdeeds 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that the user is making a personal attack, but making a comment on this RfA, just as they would whoever created it. I think you need to remember WP:AGF. Thanks, Seivad 08:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed. I have no opinion on Doktorb; I just think this is a rather bizarre deletion request for all the reasons many others have already expressed. --EddieBernard 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.'s Law

[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up on the internet one day. Law was coined within this year, has no assertions of notability, no appearance in reliable sources. Contested prod. -- Merope 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as (likely vanity) neologism. ColourBurst 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The assertion has been made that Wikipedia is not for things made up on the internet one day. While I agree with this statement, it does not apply to this law, which has been stated in many forms in the past. It is also sad that just because 'established' Wikipedians don't recognize it, it should be deleted. Furthermore, having been coined within the year is hardly a reason to delete it. Is there a law that states "all laws coined within a year are not laws?" Maybe there should be. I'll call it theprez98's law. Finally, the forums on which the law was published are clearly a reliable source and should be considered so. Do not delete! theprez98 22:28, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Burmeister

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:47, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Ilijasevic

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:50, 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 keep. Sango123 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Critchley

[edit]

Asserts notability, but seems like only a locally notable sportsperson; also unsourced and probably unverifiable. NawlinWiki 13:57, 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 redirect. Just redirect things like this in the future, it's far more efficient for everyone concerned. - Bobet 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork City F.C. In European Competition

[edit]

Information was originally on Cork City F.C. main article, then moved onto its own article. The relevent info has now been re-inserted into the main article as part of a clean up by a number of editors, including myself. See the discussion page on main article Dodge 13:55, 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. Sango123 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert)

[edit]

Non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. Little content. Peephole 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably sockpuppet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ One of a series of personal attacks made in bad faith by Arthur upon myself. Check the results of the checkuser which I requested be done against myself. "No malicous activity by this IP". Arthur simply likes likes to spuriously cast douby upon the identity of contributors, without reference to any evidence. --Pussy Galore 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No (or very little, anyway) malicious activity done by the user we suspect you of having a commonality with, either. Misguided, yes. Malicious, no. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anke Wagner

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because he won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:55, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther Göbbel

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:10, 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 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror Timeline

[edit]

Non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. Little content. Peephole 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the proximity of the nomination to 9/11 might cause an unusual spike in the books sales rank. The book is only in 190 libraries [44] (note that there is another edition in one library). Doesn't seem to support a claim of notability. GabrielF 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable sockpuppet.

^^^This comment was added by Arthur Rubin. I got so fed up with Arthurs persistent incivility, I actually requested a checkuser be done on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". As yet, I'm still awaiting an apology.--Pussy Galore 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a conspiracy theory in itself?? Couldn't the more logical explanation be that there are simply a lot of conspiracy cranks out there with money to burn, who do indeed buy such books? wikipediatrix 23:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam fritter

[edit]

Nonnotable recipe, unsourced and probably unverifiable. Deprodded by author. NawlinWiki 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The afd flag was removed by the same ip address. I haven't done anything further as I'm not sure if it should be reverted back, or a new templated added again. Marasmusine 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverted back to AFD template; if users want to readd their edits to body of article, they can. NawlinWiki 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. As another user has noted on the article's talk page, it is just as valid as Apple Pie and many other things. The article is certainly of a low quality and should be improved, but it is not (referencing the above) (a) a recipe, nonnotable or otherwise, (b) unsourced - that can be fixed, or (c) probably unverifiable, see (b).
  • Nothing worth keeping. Redirect to Spam (food). Angela. 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Spam (food). Notable only as a use of spam, not in itself. And it should mention the World War 2 association really. Bwithh 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course the article needs improvement, but its topic seems to be a real food, and the Wikipedia food section is full of similar articles about foodstuffs that are local favorites in various parts of the world. Speaking of Spam in particular, there's another article about spam musubi, for instance. Or would you like some deep-fried pizza instead? Dr.frog 00:26, 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 no consensus for deletion, but those who wish to pursue merges or redirects are welcome to do so as normal. *edit* This has actually already been redirected, so there would seem to be a pretty unambiguous result for keeping the redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Martell

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because he won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:55, 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 - there wasn't a clearcut consensus or knock out blow as to the notability of the film, but there are concerns raised by the lack of third party sources avaiable for this film. Aside from that, one of the keep advocates may be a single purpose account and another is very well known for being an ultra-extreme inclusionist. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11: The Road to Tyranny

[edit]

Non notable conspiracy video. Previous afd's resulted in no concensus. --Peephole 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Prior AFDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny - first AFD, no consensus.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (2nd nomination) - second AFD, no consensus GRBerry 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly, has the video become less notable in the meantime? Or are the noms relying on the fact that given enough nominations, the article will eventually be deleted? What a waste of time... PizzaMargherita 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article was barely being given the benefit of the doubt. No Consensus is hardly a vote of confidence. After two votes of no consensus with no improvement to the article or growth in the popularity, the consensus is now clearly Delete.--Tbeatty 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase. No consensus = Keep. This is not a vote, but a discussion. There was no consensus in the first two nominations, and I can't see any changes in circumstances that might have changed the validity of arguments either way. For the same reasons I also disagree that "the consensus is now clearly delete". PizzaMargherita 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts first edit GabrielF 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well known commercially published work.--Pussy Galore 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Indefinitely banned user for trolling[reply]

  • Keep Others on this page have made worthwile comments about keeping this movie. As I've written before, if 9/11 is an important event for modern life, and 100 million people want to investigate it more, then a fairly major movie challenging the official 9/11 story is notable. Wikipedia has a plethora of articles about minor films, I even found an entry for My Life as a Dog. Ever heard of that one? Kaimiddleton 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the example you cited was nominated for two academy awards and is part of the Criterion Collection. GabrielF 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore note that by this logic we would have to have every little minor film abou the JFK assassination, the Columbia disaster, why the US really invaded Iraq, why John Hinkley really shot Ronald Reagan and just to cover systemic bias, who really made the pyramids and how the government of East Bumblefuckstan is really controlled by real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. JoshuaZ 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, is it? I'm going to East Bumblefuckstan next week! Vizjim 12:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also a mention in the New York Post Page Six, entire text follows: MICHAEL Moore's anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't even original. Two years ago, "9/11: The Road to Tyranny," a real documentary by Alex Jones, had most of the "facts" Moore uses in his scatter-shot diatribe. Jones, who is less interested in making money than the self-aggrandizing Moore, released his film for free on his Web site www.infowars.com, where it drew legions of new fans, including producer Curt Johnson, who is hiring Jones as a consultant on a political action thriller titled "Wake Up." "road to tyranny" has 153 hits, although the majority are not Jones related. Calwatch 07:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's nothing more than a trivial, passing mention. --Peephole 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Escolano

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:20, 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. Sango123 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State

[edit]

Non notable conspiracy webvideo. Peephole 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User is a probable sockpuppet, contributions consist almost entirely of talk pages and conspiracy AfD votes. GabrielF 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need GabrielF, I requested a checkuser on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". I await your apology.--Pussy Galore 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They turned down the checkuser because the request was not formed properly. It is out of policy to randomly perform checkuser requests. Vote stacking however is a policy violation. Your editing profile suggests sock puppetry according to the sock puppet page but there is not enough evidence to perform a checkuser. It is a not violation of WP:NPA to point this out. --Tbeatty 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The check user was done. It's here : checkuser
It is a violation of WP:NPA to misrepresent the findings of a checkuser in the course of an Afd though. As per Mackensen, "the activity from your IP address is completely above board". The checkuser was not 'turned down because the request was not properly formed'. The request was not performed randomly, it was done at my behest, due to the overwhelming number of editors who did, and continue to, falsely, and without any evidence, label me as a malicous sock puppet. The checkuser was carried out, I am not a malicous sock puppet. read it for yourselves. --Pussy Galore 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Striving" to be different, are we? Morton devonshire 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ho-ho-ho, how my sides nearly split. Shouldn't you be posting that in requests for checkuser?--Pussy Galore 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Battleship, they call that a 'hit'. Morton devonshire 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've actually devoted a whole subsection on my talk page to you people who engage in personal attacks on me without any basis. You are most welcome to contribute, otherwise, pleae cut out the unwarranted personal attacks, unless you are going to provide some form of evidence. --Pussy Galore 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pussy Galore, you haven’t been here that long, and already you seem to be "going against the grain" on these AfD’s which the majority don’t have a WP:SNOW chance. Your talk page is very fascinating. You are mad at people who claim you are a sock, but an editor with your skills cannot remember your past user names and passwords? Hmmm. Also, your comments to some are not civil lately. JungleCat talk/contrib 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PG has now been indef banned from Wikipedia. So sad. Morton devonshire 18:44, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dascha Semcov

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because she won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:53, 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 redirect basically satisfies everyone. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold On (Tim Armstrong song)

[edit]

All of the content is already available on the album's page. Also, the song on its own does not seem to have indications of being notable. Joltman 14:25, 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 as original research. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Turkish-Speaking Countries

[edit]

An essay discussing, well, Islam in Turkish-speaking countries. Unencyclopedic and is original research. Again, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 14:33, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Darnstaedt

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because he won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:52, 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 G5, as created by sockpuppet of banned User:Jackp. JPD (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking in Sydney

[edit]

wiki is not a howto guide ccwaters 14:37, 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 redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar, the history is still there if someone wants to merge things. - Bobet 09:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Hanenberg

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because she won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:50, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Muñoz

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because he won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep top 10 people on wikipedia because they are still there having Concerts and all Daniel has 2 Concerts right now with 4000 people each so i dont think he should be deleted he also was in bulgaria grand casino , ibiza concerts, mallorca concerts mega park i think he has earnd his place on wikipedia.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infowars.com

[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), and brief. Some assertion of notability, so not speedy. The author is also up for AFD: Paul Joseph Watson, along with his other website. The JPS talk to me 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen [49], the site has a very high Alexa ranking considering the non-mainstream information it propagates. --Striver 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is a Alexa rating of 10 000 for a conspirace site nn? How do you justify that? --Striver 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hold Alexa ratings in as high of esteem as you apparently do, and neither do the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guidelines. Traffic != notability. --mtz206 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated TV

[edit]

Procedural relisting. WP:PROD deleted, but contested after deletion, so article was speedily restored. The original PROD reason was "Neologism without widespread use ( <1000 G-hits)". I am not sure whether the term is gaining popularity, so I abstain. Kusma (討論) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems important enough, based off the news articles (cnet and BBC). .V. 15:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is borderline notable now and seems to be catching on, so let's err on the side of caution. Michael Kinyon 06:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the time the article was originally deleted, "user-generated TV" had 979 G-hits and "user-generated television" had 212 G-hits. So I was going to ask if it was possible to sum these two numbers together to get over the 1000 threshold. However, looking at google this morning, there seems to have been some kind of methodological change or something, because now "user-generated TV" seems to get 10,600 hits. I promise this was not my doing ;-) Billbell 11:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO--Peta 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This does not appear to be a passing fad. Major companies are spending millions to get into this market and I only forsee this becoming an even larger and more commonplace form of communication.--Saintlink 05:46, 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 Deutschland sucht den SuperStar, the history is still there if someone wants to merge things. - Bobet 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Maria Zimmermann

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure Yoda1893 15:47, 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 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Polansky

[edit]

Non-notable or at the very least doesn't appear to be verifiable. A google search for "Daniel Polansky" Gaelic Football returns only this article. {prod} and {hoax} were added and removed. MrFizyx 14:49, 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. The numbers are split, but this isn't a vote and I'm inclined to give Mangojuice's argument more weight; as he says, numerous references from reliable sources were added since the nomination and he's the only one in this AfD to have commented on that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Waring

[edit]

This is a vanity article on a non-notable composer. All of the substantive contributions have come from the subject himself. After others started trying to edit out the blatant POV, the subject repeatedly blanked the page. The lack of citable reliable verifiable sources speaks for itself. Marc Shepherd 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate Marc Shepherd´s comments very much, I must quite respectfully disagree with a few of his assertions. While not as notable as some, I have enjoyed some public success as a recorded composer, and my CD is commercially available. Additionally I have been critically well reviewed by legitimate publications (American Record guide, Tampa Tribune, Allentown Morning Call). Mr. Shepherd´s assertion that the pages were repeatedly BLANKED were simply due to me trying to start over in order to get the article right. I didn´t know this was a violation of policy. Lastly, it is untrue that there are no verifiable sources, as other users were able to create links to outside sources jordanwaring 15:20 7 September 2006

The links to the web sources are to, respectively, Mr. Waring's publisher's site and Amazon.com. Unfortunately, there are no links to the reviews that Mr. Waring mentions above. I am not voting on this AfD yet, in the hopes that Mr. Waring can come up with some reliable, independent sources. -- Ssilvers 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many of the articles about me and about the music are available online in ARCHIVE form only. I have copied the review from the August 8th 1998 edition of the Tampa Tribune. I would also submit that not only should this article not be deleted, but additionally should not be considered autobiographical, since I did not write the majority of the things there, only copied and pasted it into wiki. The fact that I entered it doesn´t necessarily mean it´s autobiographical.

This is from the Tampa Tribune, by Kurt Loft, 8 August 1998

"Here's a look at a handful of other important new recordings, all of which should be available or can be ordered from book and record stores:

Christobal de Morales, "Missa pro Defunctis," Gabrieli Consort directed by Paul McCreesh (Deutsche Grammophon Archive). A 16th century Spanish priest and singer at the Sistine Chapel, Morales made important contributions to the liturgy for the dead and developed a fluid, intoxicating style capable of lulling any listener to a higher plane. His Requiem for Philip II is an hourlong tour de force in 15 sections, and its bold clarity alone influenced other composers well into the high Baroque. Anchoring the disc is Alonso Lobo's short but hauntingly beautiful "Motectum," which disarms criticism.

Jordan Waring, "Tears of Sarajevo," Piano Concerto, "Mountains of Tolima," Moravska Philharmonic under the direction of Nicolas Smith (MMC Recordings). Born in New York in 1964, this young composer-stockbroker shows tremendous promise as a member of the so-called neo-Romantic school of tonality and a solid grasp of large-scale structure. Better yet, here's a composer writing about contemporary issues, in this case, the war in Bosnia. Dedicated to the victims of that country's holocaust, "Tears of Sarajevo" is plaintive, introspective and a candidate for live performance in concert halls.

jordanwaring 07:57, 8 September 2006 {UTC}

Since the entire article has now been redone with all sources cited, may I ask why you recommend deleting the article? Thanks and kind regards
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deutschland sucht den Superstar, the history is still there if someone wants to merge things. - Bobet 09:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Knoblauch

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure Yoda1893 15:46, 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 Redirected to Tufts University, as this group is not notable enough by the standards of WP:Music to have an independent article. (aeropagitica) 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shir Appeal

[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group. Besides some alleged performances at various Synagogues and Hebrew Schools, the groups only claim to notability is a "Contemporary A Cappella Recording Award, which appears neither prestigious or notable.savidan(talk) (e@) 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to not enough votes Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:01, 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 redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar, the history is still there if someone wants to merge things. - Bobet 09:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevio Passaro

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure Yoda1893 15:46, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeeJ

[edit]

Non-notable, probably vanity page Narcisse 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So who does have the right to decide? Or would you allow total anarchy? -- RHaworth 07:21, 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 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compiler bug

[edit]

This is a Wikipedia article about a specific (albeit irritating) class of computer bugs. No seriously catastrophic bugs have been placed in this category, and while compiler bugs are one of the subtlest and most diffuclt to debug nuances of programming, they are not significant enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia. The article is linked from no mainspace pages as of this writing, and its one link is from, ironically, a list of orphaned pages. I suggest an outright deletion, and a quasi-merge (ie, a small note about compiler bugs and other subtleties) into software bug. Abednigo 15:12, 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. - Bobet 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soquil

[edit]

Contested Prod. Somebody mixing booze and Nyquil. Unfortunately no speedy category applies. 0 relevant GHits. Fails WP:V, pretty obvious WP:NFT. Fan-1967 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 15:28, 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 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egocasting

[edit]

Non-notable neologism, was previously Transwikied, these New Atlantis people have linkspammed many pages with very tenuously-related links to their little journal, which I'm cleaning up as per WP:EL Trevyn 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. A term like this needs much more currency than a journal article and some blogs to be notable. Wmahan. 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO with no predjudice against future recreation if it can be demonstrated this is a widely used term.--Isotope23 16:03, 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. as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac E

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, previously speedied and recreated. Rklawton 15:37, 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. Debate-wise, the delete arguments have gone relatively unanswered except for Servand's, but Servand's comment seems to suggest that Lyon's websites are notable, not Lyon himself. It's not overwhelming, but if the subject requests deletion, we should only keep the article if notability is clear. Mangojuicetalk 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lyon

[edit]

Not notable, self-promotional article. The subject of this article is a law student whose claim to fame is being one of numerous plantiffs in a lawsuit and creating a fan site for a TV show. This article was originally speedily deleted by another admin and myself. I've recreated it for this AfD, per a discussion with Servand. Alabamaboy 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the notability of this individual is not simply "being one of numerous plantiffs in a lawsuit and creating a fan site for a TV show" but for the use of websites that gathering legal filings from notable legal actions to provide internet users with accurate and detailed information related to those lawsuits. Servand 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article subject does not meet WP:BIO. The only references in the article that are not from the subject's own websites are 1 MTV news article and a small article from a real estate news source. Neither are what I would consider reliable sources and in my opinion this falls well short of the "multiple non-trivial" portion of WP:BIO. I also disagree with the contention that the subject has any notability based on his websites as neither site meets WP:WEB. The fact that it is a WP:AUTO article doesn't help either.--Isotope23 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and vote - while this article should be deleted, there are Mark Lyons who deserve WP articles - if the current aricle is deleted, an article on this one ([51] [52]) would be well worth having. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Hi Dotorg! InvictaHOG 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There's no need for an article about me. I was shown, by Dlyons493, how to create a user page when I first created an article about myself a year ago (which was speedy deleted). I have moved the new content to my user page. Besides, I'm horribly unpoplar; heck, I'm sitting at home alone on a Friday night. Marklyon 03:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Servand. Anonymosity 8:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a notable entry, and I believe there's a bit of a conspiracy to delete the article. First, the person who orginated this vote for deletion falsely says that the article is self-promotion. Mark Lyon didn't originate the article, nor edit it. He suggested things to add in the discussion, which is proper. Then, he votes for his own article to be deleted, probably because he doesn't want the publicity, and that's not a reason for deletion. In fact, that's so out of the ordinary that it's suspect. Not to mention, look at all the traffic on the article, especially lately.--Trypsin 04:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a pretty good start for an article, and this article would be handy for someone studying the Sony BMG/rootkit case. Xizer 04:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lankiveil 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it still considered to be self-promotional when Mr. Lyon had no part in actually making the article? Because that seems to be pretty much contrary to the definition. --81.168.92.63 12:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Actually, Marklyon did create the article and, as per his vote above, says it should be deleted. In addition, this isn't a vote but a discussion. While anonymous editors and editors whose contributions are totally limited to this AfD are welcome to comment, do understand this isn't a simply vote tally. Attempts to "stuff the ballot" don't apply here. --Alabamaboy 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you trace through the history, he created an article in 2005 when trying to make a user page. It was speedily deleted, and a year later someone else named Servand recreated the article and added a bunch of content. This has nothing to do with Marklyon creating an article about himself, so argue notoriety, not that's it's autobiographical. None of the current content came from Marklyon.--Trypsin 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuria Kato

[edit]

This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new information, namely sources from Japanese media, many in the Japanese language. Please consult the DRV for this information, as well as the revised article. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test, since she has no notable awards in Japan, no notable mainstream work in Japan, no notable magazine appearances in Japan, etc etc. Would definitely not meet WP:BIO if that official test was applied instead. And please note that Google hits has been determined to be an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars, so arguing for KEEP based on Google hits is invalid. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question The above editor asserts without evidence that the model "does not meet WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test." WP:PORN BIO has 8 critieria:
1) Has the subject won one of 8 American awards. Can the editor please give the names of the Japanese equivalents to these American ones, and show how he searched to show that the model has won none of these?
2) Has the performer been a Playboy Playmate? Japan has a Playboy, has the editor checked all these?
3) "Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to his or her field." A subjective criteria. How has the editor determined this model does not pass this?
4) "Performer has been successful in crossing over into other fields" Many of these Japanese AV actresses appear in mainstream media, television, radio, musical CDs, etc. Has the editor checked the model's career for evidence of this, or the lack thereof?
5) "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy" What media outlets has the editor checked to confirm the model does not pass this test?
6) "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" See #4 above.
7) "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." What Japanese database has the editor searched?
and finally:
8) "Performer has been in 100 or more movies (resource: iafd.com)." This is apparently a good and thorough database for American adult performers. I have searched even the most well-known of Japanese performers and found not one hit. The editor claims Japanese performers must pass this test, or the Japanese equivalent. Please show us the Japanese equivalent of this database, as I have some interest in the subject and could really use a great resource like this. In lieu of such a useful database, I have been using a mainstream Amazon search. Unlike her American counterparts, this model shows a strong presence here.
Now, if there are no Japanese equivalents to the above tests, the the editor has made a statement in bad faith, and the proposed American test cannot apply to Japanese models, because of the vast differences in the industries, the cultures, and the availability of easily-searched databases.
I will withhold my vote until the editor presents his data. Dekkappai 18:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bald, unsupported and uniformly pasted assertions of non-notability, and tests apparently done intentionally wrong (the mis-spelled "Yuria Kato" English Google test), and others clearly biased towards American subjects should not be systematically applied to every article within a category on a Japanese subject if Wikipedia is to claim to be trying to avoid cultural bias and censorship. Dekkappai 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick Google search turns up nothing notable in terms of mainstream work, awards, or magazines, in Japan. The question remains - how is the actress notable? The number of Google hits is an invalid test, and an arbitrarily assigned number of DVDs, like "24 DVDs" or "35 DVDs" is no grounds for a notability criteria when WP:PORN BIO says 100, and there is no special test just for Japanese porn actresses specifically. The only tests we have are WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. Now, this article has already been through an AfD (result was Delete) and also a Deletion Review, yet nothing notable has been found on the actress. It's time to delete the article. All of the assertions made for keeping the article had not been valid and verifiable evidence that she's actually notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor bases his vote on a Google search, which he obsessively reminds us is banned (for the record: 643 hits on "Yuria Kato", 5,770 on "Yuria Katou", 95 on "Yuria Katoh" and 121 on "Katou Yuria" for a total of 6,629 hits in English. Add that to the 490,000 hits her Japanese on her name ("加藤ゆりあ").) He further imagines a non-existent "Japanese equivalent" to the tests in the proposed WP:PORN BIO, which is clearly biased to the American adult entertainment industry. He then asserts that the subject would not pass this imagined Japanese equivalent. The editor continuously engages in straw-man, intentionally mis-leading and circular-logic arguments. Personally, I feel a vote based on such criteria should be disqualified. I will offer my vote later after more research, and looking at actual, as opposed to imagined information, possibly even searching in Japanese... as opposed to, say, Swahili. Dekkappai 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith, instead of accusing other editors of being "intentionally misleading".
    As for your specific argument, I would point out that there are not 490,000 Google results for her Japanese name: there are 490,000 estimated results. Note that this translates into just 421 unique results when you try to view them all. Observe how these figures can be used as an argument for or against keeping the article! This is why the Google test should be discounted completely. — Haeleth Talk 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the advice, Haeleth. I will try to follow that, as I have been trying, with considerable difficulty, with this editor. My belief is that Wikipedia's rules and procedures are put in place for us all to follow, in order to maintain a productive environment-- not as weapons to be used against other editors, but followed at one's own whim. As for the straw-man Google argument, once again, I did not bring it up. The other editor did, as he continously does in these discussions. Dekkappai 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, I'm trying to be culturally lenient to the fact that this porn actress, and others as well, are Japanese. The only tests we have for notability are WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. If you wish to invalidate a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO, we can always directly apply the test instead. Unfortunately, there is no other tests for notability, and this actress would fail both WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO if directly applied. Some editors won't even use WP:PORN BIO because it's a proposed test. Being Japanese doesn't mean that automatically guarantees a person an article. Japanese people can still be non-notable, and throughout all the discussions, no evidence of verifiable notability has been shown for this particular person. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per my usual rule that anyone who has an entry on the Japanese Wikipedia is probably notable in a Japanese context. — Haeleth Talk 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previous AFD was closed after only 3.5 days. I left a note at the closing admin's talk page, but it was never responded to. Neier 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haeleth. To counter WP:BIAS in the english wikipedia, it seems prudent that in determining importance/notability of a person or object in a specific culture we should give weight to to what that culture thinks is important/notable. Neier 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 100-film notability test is given at WP:PORN BIO with a database clearly designed for the American adult industry. As far as I can tell, there is no comparable database for Japanese adult industry, nor are there awards comparable to the American ones listed. It's a different country, a different culture and a vastly different industry, it requires different notability criteria. In lieu of an imagined, comprehensive database of the Japanese adult industry comparable to the one given at WP:PORN BIO, I searched the global, mainstream outlet, Amazon, and found 19 DVDs and 7 VHS tapes for 加藤ゆりあ (Yuria Katou) listed there. Models who have shown similar levels of notability (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2) have recently failed AfD nominations. For a comparison on an American adult entertainer, I searched Traci Lords at Amazon, and found a grand total of 0 DVDs. Yuria Katou is more visible at a mainstream Japanese outlet than Traci Lords is at an American one. Does this make Traci Lords non-notable? I have very little interest or knowledge in the American adult industry, but even I have heard of her. Japan and the United States are different countries with very different cultures. To strictly apply a test clearly designed for the American adult industry to models of other countries is to promote cultural bias and/or censorship at Wikipedia. Dekkappai 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Traci Lords is not exactly a good comparison. She was a big part of a child pornography controversy in the U.S., and articles like [53] can be found easily on the web. If there's a Japanese porn actress that's a big part of a Japanese national child pornography controversy, you'd be damn right she would be notable enough. The question for this particular porn actress remains - how is she notable? And is the evidence verifiable? What makes 19 DVDs notable? Does a Japanese porn actress with 18 DVDs mean she's not notable then? How about 17 DVDs? We have no criteria here. We only have WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. So where is the threshold for notability of Japanese porn actresses if we do not use these tests or the Japanese equivalents of these tests? Until some specialised notability test is set up for Japanese porn actresses, User:Dekkappai's reasoning here would mean every single non-notable Japanese actress deserves an article. I totally understand that Japanese people's notability can't be measured with American media outlets, but throughout this AfD, the first AfD, and the deletion review, the question has not been answered - how is this person verifiably notable? She's notable because she has 19 DVDs listed on Amazon...? Japanese or not, who made up that rule? If she is not notable, then the article should be deleted. It's very simple. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I meant my Amazon search to be used in addition to Haeleth's entry above pointing out the subject's article on Japanese Wikipedia. This is a good indication that Japanese editors consider her notable. Dekkappai 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Neutral per Dekkappai's edits. I'm still not supporting an article that has no reliable sources to back it up, but since this seems common procedure among porn entries (American or Japanese, I don't see a cultural bias in the lack of sourcing) I won't propose to treat this one differently than all others. ~ trialsanderrors 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was very uncomfortable putting those links in, Trialsanderrors, but verifiable sources are called for. If the links were not there, it would be labeled "unsourced." Barring an objective, comprehensive database on the Japanese adult industry, what's the alternative? Dekkappai 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think your point about linkspam is valid, Trialsanderrors. If you check the article now, you may find it better. In an attempt to address your concern, I have taken out the direct links to the videos, and placed sources in the reference section (without links), to show that the filmography is sourced. (Commercial site or no, the presence of the video at the site does prove the video exists, and is verifiable, I would think.) I hope this, in addition to the Amazon presence, and the Japanese Wiki article, helps. Dekkappai 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. not extremely notable, but notable. --Nobunaga24 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comments. Frankly I'm getting pretty annoyed at the systemic bias towards US-related subjects around here. You cannot generalise criteria for American porn actresses to Japanese ones, especially with things like "awards" which don't necessarily have ANY equivalence whatsoever elsewhere in the world. If the American Porn Association sent American porn actresses an amount of golden donkey statues every year based on their fame and importance, would we delete porn actresses from every other country in the world because none of them have received a single golden donkey? Cherry-picking criteria from WP:PORN BIO (which is pretty biased in itself) is absurd. --Rankler 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Then I ask again, what does make her notable? How does "19 DVDs" on Amazon make her notable? What if a Japanese porn star has 18 DVDs? 17 DVDs? What makes her notable, and verifiably so? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - First off, the proposed PORNBIO guideline is culturally biased, because not all cultures treat their "porn stars" in the same way. In the US, you would be hard pressed to find Traci Lords or other names in mainstream retail outlets like Amazon. In Japan, there is not such a distinction. What makes her notable is the same thing that makes other actors or models notable. Namely (from WP:BIO):
        • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
          • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
          • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
          • An independent biography
          • Name recognition
          • Commercial endorsements
      • So, the fact that there is multiple DVDs on sale at mainstream outlets with her name in the title qualifies her for notability in my book, no matter the type of movies, and no matter the classification as a "porn star". Neier 22:46, 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. DavidShankBone's idea to create an article on Phaidon Press' design classics may be a good one, but since this article wasn't created from that, it wouldn't be a good starting point. I'm willing to userfy if anyone wants a copy to make the new article, but I think starting from scratch might be better. Mangojuicetalk 20:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Design classic

[edit]

Yet another list with a hopelessly POV title. Now I know people will argue that the entries are actually referenced. Note however that there are essentially two sources, which makes the article a simple reflection of what those two sources deemed for whatever reason to be classics. The introductory sentence is trying hard to make it sound like a worthy topic but it's clear that this is deemed to remain OR. Pascal.Tesson 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'm undecided at this point, but the term "Design Classic" appears to be a neologism ripped from "Phaidon Design Classics". From the talk page it appears this originated as an attempt to reprint the Phaidon Design Classics list here, which in my opinion is a completely unacceptable concept. Still, there are other entries in this list that have different sources, but most of this list is completely unsourced and I think the criteria is weak and arbitrary. If kept, at minimum it needs a move to a better namespace and some good hard editing and sourcing. Still, I'm not convinced it's worth salvaging even then...--Isotope23 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an article on "Best quarterbacks" or "Most amazing buildings in the world!" or something like that wouldn't stand a chance and I don't see how this is any different. The sourced info would be more than welcome at some of the individual articles though, I'm sure. If it needs to be userfied to do that, I'll gladly take custody of it. Recury 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also the recent debates on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous hotels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous villas. Both turned out to be deleted by an overwhelming consensus. Pascal.Tesson 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Items just years old hardly classify as "classic". Spam magnet, marketese. Pavel Vozenilek 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think delete is merited, but *only* if Phaidon is not seen as a source that is worthy of being used as a primary expert reference. For instance, if someone put up a "List of Time Magazine's Person of the Year" (preferrably with a small descriptive paragraph for the reason under each entry), it would be totally merited. So is this more accurately a list of "Phaidon's Design Classics"? If they hold weight, and it is notable that when they deem something a design classic (like Time with its person of the year) then it is wholly merited as an entry. --DavidShankBone 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote - DO NOT DELETE but move to "List of Phaidon Press's Design Classics". If you want to delete this entry, you should also elect the Time Person of the Year entry. Phaidon Press holds weight. KEEP --DavidShankBone 18:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to the article's title being taken from Phaidon's Design Classic this isn't so. The article was created in 2002 (not by me) but Phaidon's book wasn't published until April 2006. The only reason there are so many refferences to Phadon's book is because a few weeks ago someone posted a template requesting sources. I went through the list quickly one day and tried to cite sources for some of the objects and Phaidons book was the main refference book I had to hand - but I also cited sources to the BBC/The Design Museum and MoMA. I dont have a lot of time I can give to Wikipedia, so the "citing" is not technically perfect but I really do think the article should stay. I am the one who was proposing a Wikipedia version of Phaidon's book but I did not mean to do it here with this article. I meant some kind of portal.I believe if I had the time (and broadband) I could find more varied sources to cite. The article needs a lot of work but I dont think thats a good enough reason to delete it. --Trounce 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that if it is being kept, it needs some heavy editing; but my hands are full with my Floyd Abrams project. But it doesn't matter if that is when the book was published vs. when the article was created; it just needs to be the actual list Phaidon has - This is unlikely to be the first time they have published a book of their design classics; perhaps it came from an earlier edition? --DavidShankBone 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is either going to be unsourced original research, a list based on vague criteria, or a reprint of Phaidon's Design Classic series. None of these outcomes equals an acceptible article in my opinion.--Isotope23 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would take original research - a Google for "Phaidon 'Design Classic'" came up on the first page with this Business Week article on it: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2006/id20060502_425801.htm --DavidShankBone 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my point is that this article is comprised of items that are original research (like refering to the Parker Jotter pen as a "design classic"; which is unsourced), or is a list of items with vaguely defined criteria for inclusion (what constitutes a design classic?) or it is a list of items appearing in "Phaidon 'Design Classic'"... which I don't consider a good basis for an article... in that case why are we listing items that appear in a list in a book? What is the encyclopedic relevence of that?--Isotope23 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Thε Halo Θ 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Martians Band

[edit]

This article was speedy deleted as a G4 repost from this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned in light of new evidence of notability, for which see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeRoEXEPacker

[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. My original prod reason was "advertisement for non-notable software". It was de-prodded with the edit summary "It's not an advertisement , Also the disadvantages are specified Otherwise it would concern also the UPx article." and then re-prodded with the reason "This is an ad, PECompact, Aspack and a few others were removed too." I think it still qualifies to be deleted. Kusma (討論) 16:02, 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. I hope those voting keep will help fix the article. It's tagged for cleanup, but that so rarely does anything... Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotting Flesh Radio

[edit]

Advertising spam; prod removed by creator without comment. Actually a repost, but speedy changed to prod by admin. Speedy delete. Pak21 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Not spam, but a resource for the show. It was submitted by an outside source, not involved with the show to serve as a detailed breakdown of the show. A reference since it is the first of its kind for that industry. Disneyana 7 September 2006
  • Keep, but the article is a mess and full of unsourced material, and requires a serious cleanup. While ghits are not a guarantee of notability the number here indicates that this is a notable minority interest. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs a POV overhaul. Whether or not it was intended, it reads like an advert ("Many of the show's segments are very niche and fun to listen to. They tend to keep you coming back for more each week"). I've cleaned it up a little for readability. I'm tempted to vote delete due to a lack of verifiable & reliable sourcing or media coverage, especially for the claim that Rotting Flesh Radio is the "First and Only Podcast dedicated to the Haunt Industry specifically". The list of interviewees, however, includes a few notables so I'd rather err on the side of Ridiculously Weak Keep with a much-needed cleanup to remove POV & superfluous detail. -- Scientizzle 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is a mess as if the entry was made by a first time user who doesn't know the best way to enter articles. I have cleaned it up even more based off of the last comment, and researched some more into the show. There is a large amount of verif. information when I searched it on ghits Many resources have posts for being on the show, and published information about it. I will try to edit more as I can. I say keep. It is getting better with edits. 8 September 2006
  • Keep, I did some searching and it is a weekly show. You can find some of its past resources I found and a back log at a few web addresses.I am not sure how to link them but I will write them here. http://www.podcastdirectory.com , http://www.podcast.net , http://www.podcastlounge.com and a few other podcast directories. It seems Podcast.net has the largest back log. I also did some questioning on some industry forums and it seems they have been around "weekly" since the date it states it was debuted. Sorry for my lack writing skills here, but I am new to wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.167.73 (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 Speedied as requested by author. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted yard

[edit]

I prodded this article and the author removed the prod, as is their right. Nonetheless it fails on so many levels. The simplest is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The concept of a "Haunted Yard" is simply not a topic, disambiguation page or not, that belongs in any encyclopaedia I have ever come across. Yes, search for it in Google and there are hits, of course there are, but you also get hits for "Yellow Sofa", which we do not have an article on. In other words, Ghits notwithstanding, it is really trivial and deserves to go Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a yellow sofa is just a sofa. how about http://search.ebay.com/haunted-yard for a perfect picture of a haunted yard. If you argue the topic is already covered by Halloween yard, then i can possibly give you right. you don't require to draft a group of articles on paper forehand. it is absolutely irrelevant if a few articles turn out to be non-expandable later on. you also employ that belongs in any encyclopaedia I have ever come across. - this is an assumption about Joe_Public wikipedia browser. This could also be speedied the way it has turned out (unless the other articles). Because it is possible to mention it in Halloween yard, an expandable article. User:Yy-bo 22:10, 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 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Force Order

[edit]

Was speedily deleted in Feb. 2006 after listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Force Order. I'd like to have a full debate before considering this a G4 recreation, especially since the reason given for the speedy was that the group was 4 months old at the time. NawlinWiki 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, almost no clans can pass WP:V and I don't see any evidence that these guys are an exception. Recury 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V, WP:OR. Yomanganitalk 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete yet another of the trillions of gaming clan vanity articles that get deleted constantly. No sources (are there ever?), no verifiability and no real claim to notability. Gets just 9 unique Google hits which if anything is even worse than average for gaming clans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gaming clans are not notable, and this one seems less notable than most. Fan-1967 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Open and shut case. ColourBurst 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost uncontestably strong keep: I had great fun writing this article and I have great fun on Wikipedia; deleting this entry would just make me cry. To be perfectly honest, I didn't understand the policies of verifiability or notability, however since reading them I now see that the article probably has little reason for being here and I apologise for wasting your respective times with it. I don't see, however, what harm it is doing; it isn't misleading or advertising, it's not a vanity page and I think it's just a rather nicely written article about a gaming clan. I would suggest that if almost no gaming clans are notable - and there are some notable clans out there - then perhaps the rule is flawed. LorD 20.18, 7 September 2006 (BST).
  • Comment: The purpose of Wikipedia being what, exactly? LorD 21.29ish 7 September 2006. (BST)
  • Comment: Yes, yes, I read all those and I didn't see how the article caused cracks in the foundation of the mighty Wikipedia. LorD 21.57 7 September 2006. (BST)
  • Comment: It isn't just this article. How many other gaming clans would like to create vanity articles here? If you allow them, why not every beer-league softball team (games are games, after all)? Fan-1967 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And what would be wrong with having every beer-league softball team? LorD. 16.53, 8 September 2006.
We would just be taking people's word on it that any of what they wrote about their softball team is true. Instead we go by what has been published by reliable sources. If you had actually read any of the policy you would know all this and wouldn't be making arguments that everyone here has heard 100 times before. Recury 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because "every beer-league softball team" would not belong in a print encyclopedia. They are usually of extremely local interest only. Mapetite526 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a print encyclopaedia; surely that's the joy of Wikipedia, to supercede the print encyclopaedia? LorD 11.52, 9 September 2006.
  • Comment: I was only trying to be helpful by adding the clan to the thingummy; there's no need to set up a website for it since it already has one, n'est pas? I pay for that one already, I don't want to go paying for another one just to put a Wikipedia page in there. No, the point of putting it in was primarily fun and trying to be helpful; I apologise for having fun on this site where those luxuries are reserved for administrators. I should clearly know better. (Read with a smile for I'm not really trying to be antagonistic.) LorD 21.30ish 7 September 2006. (BST)
I suggested a free webhost. Also, Wikia is free if you want to have a site in a wiki format. Oh, and I'm not an admin. Bwithh 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But my point was that I run the site already, there's little point in putting the page on a site when really it belongs here and it's only a collection of people who are stuffy about rules that Wikipedia so famously doesn't have who disagree. LorD 16.57, 8 September 2006.
Actually WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:V are all official Wikipedia policies rather than "rules that Wikipedia so famously doesn't have" (is this the mainstream image that Wikipedia has? All the more reason for stringent observation of the policies). You might be thinking of official policy WP:IAR, but that's only applicable if ignoring rules improves or maintains the quality of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia with standards, which leads us back to WP:NOT. Bwithh 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting the fifth pillar here. What is the point in saying that the site doesn't have rules but then enforcing them as policies. A rose by any other name... LorD 19.07, my birthday, 2006.
Comment You forgot to read the rest of the fifth pillar, ...besides the five general principles elucidated here. WP:NOT stems for the first pillar, and WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and that leads into WP:V. ColourBurst 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I forgot no such thing, I was highlighting how meaningless it is to say 'we have no rules... except for these ones, but otherwise we have no rules. No rules whatsoever... Except those ones over there.' Fifth pillar just there to make up numbers, is it? The mainstream image that Wikipedia has is that it's a vast source of mostly-inaccurate information on almost any subject. It's a given that there will be inaccuracies, people accept that about a print encyclopaedia, they are more likely to accept that about an online encyclopaedia, especially one whose sources are the online version of the tabloids. It's going to be inaccurate throughout its entire existence owing to its nature; on one side you could have an article on Pet Shop Boys telling of how they were slating Robbie Williams for not being able to concentrate while recording in the studio for his new album, Rudebox and you could cite Victoria Newton's column in The Sun as the source, but then you could cite the Pet Shop Boys site as the source vehemntly denying this claim. Where subjectivity comes in is if you're a fan of Victoria Newton or if you're homophobic and choose sleazy tabloid 'journalists' over PR-concerned artists. Someone will always believe one side and someone else will always believe the other, thus such a project like Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in the aspect of accuracy. Where you could let people help out is to fill in the gaps of subject matter; "...information on almost any subject". It doesn't have to be almost. LorD 12.51, 9 September 2006.
  • Delete, sorry, there's just nothing at all notable about this group, and I'm still having trouble with any small/new gaming guild being notable. I suppose there may be exceptions, but I'm not seeing anything different here. Kuru talk 03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: UFO is notable because it just is. Like Paris Hilton. Notability is subjective. I don't find maps interesting or notable, however you'd vehemently disagree. LorD 17.01, 8 September 2006 (and it's my birthday today).
      • Comment Notability is not subjective. There are objective ways to deduce notability. Namely, all the articles we linked to that you seem to not understand. UFO and Paris Hilton are not notable "because they are", they are notable because people who have no affiliation with the subject take the effort to write verifiable sources about the subject. If nobody wrote a verifiable source on Paris Hilton or UFO, they'd be similarly rejected. So I have a question: do you currently believe that your site does not pass WP:V? ColourBurst 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: My site meaning the UFO clan site]? LorD 19.09, 8 September 2006.
          • Comment yes. ColourBurst 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Deduction is a subjective art and so there can be no subjective way of deducing anything, much less something as subjective as notability. Regardless, the UFO site is compiled by its members and the clan's site has been linked to a number of times (with authority) by a number of other gaming clans who note it for its wealth of resources and tutorials; I'm still unclear as to whether those sources make it verifiable. LorD 11.56, 9 September 2006.
  • Delete per Bwithh and ColourBurst. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. --Peta 05:39, 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. - Bobet 09:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Classified

[edit]

Uh, a band that never released any music? While one of its members might have later become notable, the band itself is not notable by any means. Delete then redirect to Classified. --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 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. (aeropagitica) 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArThES

[edit]

De-proded. This is a non-notable local theater group; no verifiable & reliable sources have been presented. The "Artistic Theater for Evangelization Society" only gets one Google hit, a Yahoo group. -- Scientizzle 17:05, 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. (aeropagitica) 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wobsy constant

[edit]

This is definitely a neologism and very likely a WP:HOAX. Erechtheus 17:14, 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. Mangojuicetalk 20:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RGS Choir

[edit]

This is a non-notable school activity or club. Erechtheus 17:18, 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. - Bobet 08:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glish (rapper)

[edit]

This artist fails WP:MUSIC. Neither Amazon nor AllMusic have heard of him. Erechtheus 17:23, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of CRM vendors

[edit]

This article duplicates the category Category:CRM software, and doesn't provide any additional value. It's also historically been a target for spam links. It was WP:PRODded and deleted some time ago; since it's now been recreated, I figured it should go through the formal process. Kickaha Ota 17:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Update: It should be noted that this article might have been created because there were still a number of links to it in CRM-related articles. I've now gone through and removed all the links to it from the main namespace. Kickaha Ota 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article changed from all external links to all internal links, invalidating first part of this comment. Kuru talk 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Michael Kinyon 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why all the delete votes? There are many lists like this. We cannot just delete this and keep other lists. Wikipedia must take a general stand on lists. Until that has been done I see no reason why this article should be deleted. It is not a spam magnet - all links are wikilinks (not the current article but the previous article did), thus notable articles. --Sleepyhead 07:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, there are plenty of list articles. But the list articles that exist generally either don't duplicate categories, or add some value that the category doesn't. For example, List of ERP vendors at least attempts to add value beyond what a category would provide, since it sorts the vendors by sales volume. (It lacks data for many vendors and doesn't cite its sources, but at least it's trying.) The other common reason to use a list as opposed to a category is to allow external links or redlinks to be included in the list. But since the editors watching the previous version of this article took a very hard line against allowing such links to be included (since they were often spam), that justification went away too. We're not judging the value of lists as a class; we're judging the value of this list in particular, and it simply doesn't give the reader any value that Customer relationship management and Category:CRM software doesn't already supply. Kickaha Ota 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change it's definition: As long as this is only an alphabetic list, there is hardly any added value compared to a category. If the list gets another ordering criterium like for example revenue or market share, I could see value in it. And yes, it was a spam magnet before. But one other point to consider: I've created those list articles at times myself to relief the main article from the spam pressure. This often resulted in fewer changes to the main article which could then be better reviewed compared to ignoring changes to an article because one knows it's probably just spam again. This might be a reason to keep it. --S.K. 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above "delete" votes. Would vote to keep if summary descriptive information were added about each vendor's offerings.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 per WP:Music. (aeropagitica) 16:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Ray (band)

[edit]

De-proded. Band presents a minor claim of notability, "Sister Ray won first place at Indie Fest 2006 in Portland, Oregon" (That I've now sourced), but that's it. No noted discography or any other coverage. AllMusic and Discogs don't list any relevant profile or discography, nor does the band appear to be signed to a label. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- Scientizzle 17:26, 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. (aeropagitica) 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aasa

[edit]

Contested Prod. Non-notable company. 42 unique Google hits. Fails WP:CORP Fan-1967 17:28, 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 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MerckSource

[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion which doesn't seem to apply; but it looks controversial enough to warrant a discussion. I'll abstain for now. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. Looking at the contributions for user:SCM, the author of this article, they're all Merck-related ads. For instance, SCM puts in a link in a healthcare article for "Your Health Now" magazine, which turns out to be a Merck publication. And of course adding "Your Health Now" to a list of health magazines. Getting back to the article proper. no notability stated or implied. Also something odd turned up in Google: I was initially impressed by 141,000 Ghits, but only three pages of 22 distinct listings. It turns out there's a lot of press releases out about MerckSource, and that's basically it. Yeah, this is a new service, but that's also the point: WP is not a newspaper, nor a free webhost, nor is this the place to become well-known. At best, merge into a the general Merck article. Subject fails WP:NOT for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles (I don't count articles which merely link to MerckSource, as mostly noted above - the articles have to be about the subject). Tychocat 17:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Indirect Advert

    My concern with this page is not that MerckSource should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, but that the way it is presented may lead to people thinking that MerckSource is an independent website and will give unbiased information, see quote from MerckSource page:

    MerckSource is non-promotional and written and edited by third-party medical professionals. The site was launched in 2002 and has received several awards.

    This is saying that MerckSource is excellent basically, and that it can be trusted.

    The problem is that it is well known that big Pharma (Drug Companies such as Merck) use general or specific websites as well as patient groups to 'advertise products'. E.g. even on the MerckSource page it has a link to Merck's homepage. And the methods used are often quite subtle - e.g. there is nothing obviously wrong with the MerckSource website - it does not directly advertise Merck products but it does have links to Merck sites including Merck Product Info (even though there is a disclaimer). If I was to advise a patient who wanted to use such a website I would say okay but take care because you may find yourself getting linked to less neutral websites.

    I suggest, that if there is nothing particulary special about MerckSource, that the majoirty of Drug Information websites supported by Pharma are listed on their own page of Wikipedia - and written in factual unbiased terms so that the user can choose which site to use if any.

    Wikipedia does not want to become a tool of Pharma, but equally Pharma and its websites need to be fairly laided out in Wikipedia.

    Cheers

    Lethaniol 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's spam. Also, WP is not a web directory. Gazpacho 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it claims to be non-promotional, it is a blatant advertisement.--Anthony.bradbury 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an ad to me, WP is not a directory, etc...L0b0t 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XCM (Xtreme Card Manipulation)

[edit]

The article has all sorts of problems but it's basically an advert for one person's personal take on card manipulation. The article starts: "Xtreme Card Manipulation is a term coined by De’vo vom Schattenreich, one of the foremost card manipulators in the world." (POV problems) and later goes on to say "unlike magic tricks, XCM is not intended to deceive." which is patently false, magic is meant to entertain people. Any magician that aims to deceive their audience will run out of audiences pretty quickly. And to top it all off the bottom of the article contains various links to commercial websites (2 for each effect). It's obsolete with card manipulation which focusses on the art as a whole rather than how one particular person views it. Apparently De’vo vom Schattenreich broke the world record coin rolling, so I'll encourage the creator to change tacks. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 18:02, 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. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zujanje

[edit]

Small not notable Serbian website. AFD tag put by anon, Im completing nomination, first 3 'votes' are from Talk:Zujanje Shinhan 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, extended reasoning. Serbian uses both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, and Zujanje.com is published in Latin alphabet. But here, I did a search for Cyrillic Zujanje - [54]. 221 hits, and all of them referring to people complaining to buzzing in their ears or asking for computer advice with buzzing in their computers. Serbian users generally use latin alphabet on internet, especially in forums and similar communities. Now, if this were an article on some obscure Serbian word, or something similar, the argument might would hold water. BUT, this is an internet website so Google and alexa are applicable in this case irrelevant of the language used. There are many much more notable and well known web forums in Serbia than Zujanje. Here are a few examples: EliteSecurity (very big computer oriented forum, deleted as uncontested prod, alexa rating 8292), Serbian Cafe (alexa rating 6348), Benchmark.co.yu (hardware site and forums, alexa rating 22329), Burek.co.yu (general community, alexa rating 16493). Also, look at top sites per country, Serbia. I'm not sure which is really biggest of these several forums (ok, benchmark is not for sure), but I'm sure Zujanje is not among the top 100, and it has no other claims to notability.Lets look at WP:WEB. 1) Nope, Zujanje is subject of no independent sources (InfoStud and ETF are not independent). 2) Nope, no award whatsoever. 3) Nope, its distributed by InfoStud which is also not notable. Also, let me quote WP:WEB 'The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via in-lined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.'. This article doesn't have any assertion of notability, much less actual proofs. Also, you might want to read User:Uncle G/On notability for why is Notability important. So, if you want to counter Systemic Bias feel free to create articles on those websites I quoted and leave Zujanje for when its at least marginally notable. Myself, I didn't even think of starting Emulation Galaxy article before I had prepared at least 2 references independent of the subject. Shinhan 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not convinced by the unnotability arguments put forward. It's a Serbian website, and Serbian uses the cyrillic alphabet, so there won't be many google hits using our alphabet. Better to check with the Serbian project people on the site first.--Sepa 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Shinhan's arguments are sound and he's a much better judge in this area than me.--Sepa 19:34, 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 deleted. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phaze zero

[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete due to lack of reliable sources indicating that this artist meets WP:MUSIC. Suspected vanity. Unsure of speedy status due to claim of underground notability. --Kinu t/c 18:23, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quiz

[edit]

Vanity article about an alleged TV quiz. WP:NFT applies. -- RHaworth 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, looks like it was a taping shown only in the author's local church. VegaDark 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete I think that a couple of sentences might sound stupid, but I have reason to believe that this is based on a true event. Unfortunately, though this article is about a true event, it is not the biggest of events and so there is no website or an available source. However, some people might be interested to know about this quiz show, so it should stay. aleksengland 16:18, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  • Delete - Verifiability, not truth. There has to be sources. It doesn't matter if the "event" actually took place or not. --Onorem 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aleks England, it should stay. Seb1413

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Seduction in the Kitchen

[edit]

Non-notable television pilot. Fails Google and IMdb test. YUL89YYZ 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The Bread 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Leoncavallo F1 Racing Team

[edit]

The page is an exercise in self-promotion. The so-called Leoncavallo F1 Racing Team is not real, and is little more than an idealistic enterprise in someone's imagination. This article has no basis in reality. Does not abide by Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and is not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Readro 18:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A non-existent team doesn't deserve an encyclopedia entry. Akradecki 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've also prodded the same author's article 2014 Formula One season for being a similar crystal ball article. Fram 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note As of 9/8/06, this AfD has been vandalized (blanked) 6, 7 8 times, several of which were by the author. Akradecki 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) updated Akradecki 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The Leoncavallo F1 Racing Team is an ungoing project and has a realistic goal, for which all 44 members involved at the moment are motivated in achieving. In our defense, we are capable of proving that this Team is real and we have the proof to prove it to you. If you have questions or if you have something to say, please contact the Team's President at president@leoncavallof1.com
  • Comment Unless you have lodged an entry with the FIA to compete, then the team is not notable

enough for Wikipedia. If you have proof that this team is more than just a pipedream, then show it here. After all, this is supposed to be a debate. Readro 09:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons

[edit]

This article should be deleted since its a list.Qrc2006 18:56, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn ~ct.e 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism in Hinduism

[edit]

Nomination withdrawn I'll work on this article myself and try to improve it. No basis in history. Seems like a vanity page and It does not satisfy WP:OR or WP:RS. Specifically, even the Samkhyas and Mimamsakas believed in gods (although they may not have believed in a creator god). They accepted the Vedas which speak of gods. The gods were worshipped during Samkhya and Mimamsa times too. The first "Hindu" who might be called a proper athiest who did not worship any god may be Savarkar, but even that is not absolutely conclusive. Look at this and the reply. Looks like some nationalists are out to distort Hinduism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for such views. But still, I would have no problems with Atheist Hindus if the present article is moved there. Babub→Talk 19:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Atheist hindus is completely a misleading heading, Just emphasising atheists as infidels. We are talking about philosophies here, not personal views. You may say samkhya to be a non-hindu philosophy, but all scholars define it as a Hindu philosophy (with no exception). And even if you read a three line text about Samkhya anywhere(reliable), you will come to a statement that Samkhya was a atheistic philosophy.nids(♂) 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Who said Samkhya is non-Hindu? Do not put words in others mouths. Uou seem to have a habit of doing so often. Babub→Talk 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above reply. So now, atleast i will not have to fight to define it as an hindu philosophy. You can check hinduism archives, there were a few users who contested this claim by saying that this is an extinct philosophy and does not have any contemporary followers. Now, the only thing required is to prove that they were atheistic. I guess it wont be hard.nids(♂) 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thats an intersting observation. how have you come to that conclusion.nids(♂) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I stuck that out above. Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the reply part is still unstruck.nids(♂) 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Most of the sources are non-authoritive essays by non-notable people as far as I can tell. With all the gods which I am sure are mentioned in Hinduism saying that since it is atheistic because it has no propounder as one of the sources did is tenuous at best. Sources are not reliable as WP:RS requires them to be.- Mgm|(talk) 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those suggesting WP:NOR guidelines here are a few references [55] and if you're so inclined a length interview with the Indian Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen who talks about atheist Hindus here,[56]
The article does not imply that Hinduism is atheistic religion. It only implies that Hinduism has athiestic schools of thought.nids(♂) 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If anybody is thinking about delete vote, than Please refer to Atheist Jew and here too. How is it a vanity article?? Is samkhya not a hindu philosophy. Just because it doesnt fit a particular POV, it becomes a vanity article. I accept that it is not properly written, but an afd is too much.nids(♂) 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way how do you define hinduism babub????.--nids(♂) 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree that the definition of Hinduism is quite impossible and I am not disputing that Samkhya is atheistic, but saying "atheism has always been a part of Hinduism" is not true. Babub→Talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If you have a problem with a part of the article edit it or talk about it. If you think it's controversial write to add your thoughts but the article satisfies WP:V. We are not discussing what a single line of text refers to, you've put the article up for deletion.--Antorjal 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Have you noted that in the whole article, that is the only sentence that falls under "Atheism in Hinduism", the topic that I've put up for deletion? The rest of the article is just about Atheist Hindus. Babub→Talk 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How did you come to this conclusion that there is only one line in the article which elaborates Hindu philosophies. Only one section of the article talks about the hindu atheists, rest is about philosophies.nids(♂) 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the hardly authoritative sources, the notion of "atheism in <a religion>" seems to be a contradiction in and of itself, and the article does nothing to resolve this, apart from possibly misunderstanding atheism to mean the disbelief in a creator deity, specifically. There may be a real religious encyclopedia topic around here, but this particular article is mislabeled at best and probably just rather confused original research. The notion of Hinduism as a not (principally) religious, but political movement is already covered at Hindutva, if that's what at issue here. (Incidentally, an atheist Jew is just an atheist member of a cultural/ethnic group, no contradiction there.) Sandstein 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) [Vote changed, see below. Sandstein 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)][reply]
What do you think about Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa philosophies.nids(♂) 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: what do I think of them? I have no opinion on them as a philosophical matter. Do you think they constitute atheism? There's no indication for this, as they seem to include supernatural concepts, but at any rate, because of WP:NOR, we'd need pretty reliable sources for this. Sandstein 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The basic philosophy of these schools of thought is atheism. So i dont understand how people argue about atheism in hinduism, when they dont have any qualms about accepting these philosophies.nids(♂) 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I havent requoted the sources for samkhya and mimamsa philosophies in the atheism in Hinduism article because the latter is just meant to be a summary of them. If it is required than those sources can be again quoted. this is a quote from Samkhya article There is no philosophical place for a creator God in the Sankhya philosophy.nids(♂) 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sandstein, atheism in religion may be a contradiction in Abrahamic religions which are bound to what their books say. Hinduism is like science. Views are not put forth or discarded summarily. If science puts forth the idea of multi-verse or strings, it is considered without bias by other scientists. Scientists who cannot keep their biases separate from research are no scientists. The same thing happens in Hinduism. The guiding factor is the search for truth. If this search leads someone to discard the theory of a creator God, that is perfectly alright. Hinduism is more than just God. Family, society, and traditions also are important. There is nothing political about the search for truth. Yes, Samkhya, Vaisesika, and Purva Mimamsa are atheistic, there is nothing supernatural about them, this was the belief of those people, just as much valid as anybody else's. Aupmanyav 05:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me further elaborate why I think a Hindu atheist is possible. I believe a Hindu can be described as a member of a cultural group. Growing up in a Hindu family, I identify with many aspects of the culture and philosphy. I even participate in communal religious rituals such as Durga Puja which I identify with wholly on a cultural level. I do not believe in the deities themselves. Further, if Jews can claim a term "atheist Jew" on the grounds of lineage and culture, how is it that I cannot when I belong within the purvey of the caste system which is also hereditary and part of practical Hindu culture?--Antorjal 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that in that sense, it is hard to be an "atheist" without the tag "Hindu atheist" if one is from a Hindu family and one resides in India. Such a person is constantly evaluated on the basis of their caste, their food habits, and their place in the social and cultural hierarchy, which for such a person is predominantly Hindu. Even by my not being a believer, had to perform certain rituals at my grandmother's cremation because it was expected of me at a cultural level. No one cared what I believed or if I believed in the deites themselves. I am not taking a POV on this, only a dispassionate view of a fact.--Antorjal 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This statement makes no sense. Atheism means disbelief in supernatural entities. It does not mean "is not a religion". Sandstein 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was the exact view of many of the Hindu philosophies. Some of them explicitly defined themselves as non-beleiver in creationist god.nids(♂) 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply But they believed in a multiplicity of gods. Babub→Talk 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that all the hindu philosophies were atheistic. Many were monotheistic and many were POLYTHEISTIC too. The current article on Hinduism doesnt even accept the polytheistic veiw.nids(♂) 18:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rant about Hinduism article for? Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is an excellent idea that would clear up the religious connotations of Hinduism and merge it with the more social/cultural/hereditary notion of Hindus.--Antorjal 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the web and a couple of references. The article is fine as it is. Atheism can and does exist within Hinduism per scholars such as Amartya Sen. See [57] --Antorjal 05:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i have provided reliable references, which claim that samkhya were atheistic. It was you who suggested that they beleived in gods. So its upto you to verify your statement.nids(♂) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable. The idea of Atheism in Hinduism has not been put up in any reputable book by a reputable author. Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first chapter of Madhava Acharya's 13th century treatise, "Sarvadarsanasangraha", with 26,500 hits on Google and a major text on HIndu philosophy in Indology programs at major schools across the world.--Antorjal 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding a section of text I added to the article from Amartya Sen's interview: the Indian Nobel Prize-winner Amartya Sen in an interview with Pranab Bardhan for the California Magazine published in the July-August 2006 edition by the University of California at Berkeley states:
"In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than exists in any other classical language. Even within the Hindu tradition, there are many people who were atheist. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" - a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism."[58]
Please peruse at your leisure. Thanks.--Antorjal 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sen talks about "Indian culture" having athiestic elements and he is not known for his freindliness towards Hinduism. Moreover, he is an economist and no religious theologian! Babub→Talk 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he is not friendly to the brand of Hinduism you are familiar with but even that requires verifiable sources. And I can argue that atheistic Hindu culture is very much a part of what you consider Indian culture. Next time please cite references when you say something about an academic (whose opinion) you may not agree with per WP:RS. He is primarily an economist but how does that detract from his reference to a religious text? Please do not refer to only part of the article and discard the part you feel you do not agree with Thanks.--Antorjal 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The article you quoted is of five pages. Have you gone through the entire thing? Where in the article does he say Atheism has been always a part of Hinduism? I once again went through it. He talks about "Indian culture" throughout. His observations may or may not be in line with the beliefs of present-day Hindus, that is a different issue. "Sen believes Hindu nationalists (and American "clash of civilizations" theorists) distort India's history with their singular focus on the Hindu tradition, a theme he again takes up in Identity and Violence" Therefore he is in favour of removing the "singular focus" on "Hindu tradition" and favours atheist/ other views too. But how is this a source for Atheism in Hinduism, as this needs to be in Atheism in India? Babub→Talk 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Hinduism is not simply a religion in the conventional sense of the word. There is scope for agnostism and athism while being a Hindu. In the Wonder that was India, Prof Basham details a Hindu sect that practiced athism. - Parthi 04:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are two aspects of question. (1) Whether there was any atheism in Hinduism in history. This question may be debated. The Atheist Hindus will clearly find it in the Darshanas. The Theist Hindus will fail to see any evidence. But there is a second angle also. (2) Hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion which is limited by what is written in a book or has been declared as truth by a representative of God. It is an evolving religion. At one time we were worshipping local Bhairavas and Kshetrapalas, then we were worshipping Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti, we were joined by people who were worshipping Indra, Varun, Surya, and Agni. Sri Adi Sankaracharya believed all-inclusive Brahman, Sri Madhvacharya informed us that God and jiva are essentially different, Sri Ramanujacharya said that in special conditions God and Jiva are same, Sri Nimbarkacharya said God and Jiva are separate as well as different. We revere all these Acharyas and also the writers of verses in the Vedas and the Darshanas. Hindu Atheists of today may or may not believe in the existence of a Brahman, may or may not believe in a God creator. The controversy is as old as the Nasadeeya Sukta. Please explain, how any one can fetter our Hinduism into believing this or that. That is our birth-right. We go by what Valmiki made Rama say in his Ramayana: 'Satyam eva eeshvaro loke, satyam padmaa samaashritaa; satyamoolaani sarvaani, satyaan naasti param padam.' (Truth alone is god in this world, all virtues are established in truth; all are rooted in truth, there is nothing higher than truth.) Aupmanyav 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend Babub, I am not being emotional. I am explaining a basic principle of Hinduism so that it does not become an Abrahamic religion. Hinduism is a multicolored tapestry and at least, I am proud of it. It is the only religion (even Buddhism has its own prejudices) in the world which is that brave. Had it fettered my search for truth in anyway, I would perhaps not have been a hindu. It is possible that in the days to come there would be more people like me. Keep the article wherever you want, but asking for its deletion would not be fair to Hinduism. Regards. Aupmanyav 14:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Babub→Talk 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i would like to know that from where did you get an idea that Samkhyas and Mimamsaks originally believed in God. And what about Caravak philosophy. If the article is about atheist hindus, it will only define the current or past hindus who were atheists. Not the philosophy part, which is currently discussed.nids(♂) 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where I got the idea? This smells more and more like a soapbox to me. Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What smells like a soapbox to you. samkhyas and Mimamsaks were atheistic is a fact. no matter how much you say. And just an advice, go through WP:Civil.nids(♂) 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Samkhyas and Mimamsakas believed in gods. The burden of proof is upon those who want to keep the content, not upon those who want to delete it. Do you have any poof that they did not belive in polytheistic gods? Babub→Talk 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough proof that they did not beleived in any gods, either monotheistic or polytheistic. Yes the article needs more references, and a lot of expansion. But there were no gods in Samkhyas, Mimamsaks, Carvaka, Jainism and Buddhism is beyond doubt.nids(♂) 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding me. See http://www.mimamsa.org. All Hindu philosophy books say Mimamsa is a philosophy of sacrifices to the gods. Do not group Charvaka, Buddhism and Jainism here, since they don't accept the Vedas unlike Samkhya and Mimamsa. I can provide you links to online editions of translations of the Vedas. You read that and tell me how Samkhya or Mimamsa who accpet the Vedas are atheistic? Babub→Talk 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two things here. First, are you defining Hinduism on the basis of belief or non-belief in Vedas. Second, check out Historical vedic religion and find out for yourself, similarity between hinduism and vedic religion. Vedas did not have any reference to worship of Shiva, a now common hindu god. And remember they translated vedas according to their beliefs, none of them is perfect. Check out Ashwamedha and tell me how many hindu philosophies advocated the ritual as described exactly in the vedas, including the necrophilia and bestiality part.nids(♂) 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might have to wait for sometime, so that experienced editors can elaborate the difference between the vedic religion and hinduism. Also remember that vedas condemned the idol worship (as revealed by swami dayananda), but Hindu do worship idols.nids(♂) 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough propaganda, please. Babub→Talk 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, you would like to explain how is it a propaganda.nids(♂) 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this AfD is adventurous deletionism.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Keep. The above statements have convinced me that I know too little to engage in this discussion; thanks for all the info. I'd like to ask the knowledgeable people in this AfD to add an explanation on exactly how the concept of atheism in what we Westerners think of a world religion works. It's really quite counterintuitive, I think, and the article does not address it well - it seems to presume a certain knowledge about Hinduism that most non-Hindus wouldn't have. Sandstein 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would request you to come to talk page of this article and present your views for the improvement of the article. Your comments will really help as we will know where to elaborate the points so that someone without any knowledge about hinduism can understand it. You can also present the western outlook. Thanks.nids(♂) 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why, dear friend Sandstein, should we discuss the western concept of atheism in an article on the hindu concept of atheism? Explaining our view-point clearly would do the job just as well. Aupmanyav 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Babub, you know that There is no other person who wants to move it to your atheist hindu page. Discuss here if you want to move it. Many have already expressed disscontent with your move view. Thanks.nids(♂) 13:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Well, Babub was so keen to move this page to Hindu atheists to emphacize that nothing in Hindu philosophy is atheistic, while you are suggesting that only the philosophical parts were somewhat atheistic and no atheism exists in hinduism today. I guess the current article with title Atheism in Hinduism is a good middle path. Thanks.nids(♂) 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How the hell is that implied by what I said? Babub→Talk 11:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DaGizza, see Antarjol's comments on Sandstein's submission. An 'atheist hindu' does not mean a break from the traditions. Just today I have observed the 'shraddha' of my grandmother. My reverence to the usefulness of Rama and Krishna story is just as strong as of any other hindu or perhaps more (now that I do not go by just blind faith). Aupmanyav 10:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aup, I appreciate, as a Brahmana that you perform the duties required of you. I totally agree that our tradition empahsises solely on karmas, rather than "philosophy" as such. And this means that one can have any philosophy one wants but should do the karmas. This is basically the philosophy of the Gita. Babub→Talk 11:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. In reference to DaGizza's comment above, to say that none of the modern cultural side of Hinduism has any traces of atheism is incorrect if one chooses to define Hinduism as some people do, which is a belief in the accuracy of a way of thought or pattern of inquiry, rather than of a single set of beliefs and strictures. I quote the first line of WP's article on religion: Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. . It should be clear that Hinduism,including monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, and even "whatever, dude" agnosticism, can be defined, even today -perhaps especially today - as an (a) socially coherent (b) a common group of beliefs in a system of thought considered to be the highest truth and (c)morality and institutions associated with that system of thought. This is more than abstruse philosophy, it is a central question about self-identification. If I choose to say I am both an atheist and a Hindu, and also have historical precedents for my beliefs going back as far as anything in Hinduism, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes practice. Hornplease 06:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Appealing to novelty, eh? Babub→Talk 09:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would like to see Advaita vedanta. Please try and understand that this is just a part of Hinduism. Not complete Hinduism. nids(♂) 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really, why would I, considering that I wrote a large part of the article? Babub→Talk 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So i guessed correctly. You must have also wrote the Hinduism article extensively, that is how the brahmana part in the intro came from. A clear POV. I dont know any vaishnavite or shaivite who regards his gods as a Brahmana. Just understand that Advaita Vedanta != Hinduism. Advaita vedanta is just a subset of hinduism. Dont try to impose your faith on others. Take a break for yourself and understand that Hinduism is much more than Advaita Vedanta.nids(♂) 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you must be Sherlock Holmes!

Babub→Talk 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast i am right. Just like him.nids(♂) 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you continue to hassle me in the future, I'll report you to the authorities. Babub→Talk 15:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be clear. How have i hassled you. You hassled me by filing this AfD. And also check your language in this page. Thanks.nids(♂) 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes. I will have to change your Indian philosophy to Hindu philosophy. If you think thats hassling. Please feel free to report me.nids(♂) 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Well referenced article. Jankit 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I apologize if I have offended anyone and I request everyone to be a little less emotional. We are all debating for the greater good and I don't suspect any malicious intent on anyone here. There are various interpretations and I do see how the original article was misleading to many in it's content. I hope this discussion will breed no ill-feeling. I apologize again for any harsh words. Thanks. --Antorjal 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you apologising. you never did something that deserves an apology.nids(♂) 16:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy bylhouwer and John Pavlakis

[edit]

Lawyer. Has worked for some clients, been on committees, and presented at conferences! Too bad none of that qualifies you for notability. Anon silently removed prod. My Alt Account 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless it can be established that this is a vanity article, then I'd suggest userfying. Akradecki 19:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also submit John Pavlakis (similar article) for consideration. I would not userfy before we can establish vanity. It may not be about herself. - Mgm|(talk) 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELET. Both lawyers are at the moment working on some major cases, that have been in the news countless times, does HIH and Pan Pharmaceuticals ring a bell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peapea (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 September 2006.
  • Delete Neither currently meets WP:BIO. Also, the text is verbatim copy from here & here, respectively. -- Scientizzle 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE Now, could you define notable for me? As far as i am concerned both these lawyers are extremely notable. Just being involved with Pan and/or HIH seems quite notable to me! I'm not sure if you are familiar with how the law and lawyers work, but whilst a case is being solved etc. the people aren't famous until the case is solved. In this case though they are already famous, so after the trial is adjourned you will already have an entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peapea (talk • contribs) .
    • Also, search "John pavlakis" "HIH" "Pan Pharmaceuticals" on google and you get quite a few entries, and if you even venture into one of them it reads " Led by John Pavlakis, Blake Dawson Waldron's 54-partner team advises an ... HIH and Pan Pharmaceuticals in ongoing multi-million dollar litigation ". MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR. He is also listed in the legal500 as one of the leading individuals in dispute resolution. I'm not sure if it's just me, or does that sound notable?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peapea (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom--Peta 05:29, 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. - Bobet 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thiele

[edit]

Deprodded autobiography on radio person with no sources, and no obvious web presence to verify it. -Steve Sanbeg 19:24, 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. (aeropagitica) 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Speedo Run

[edit]

non-notable event Akradecki 19:26, 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 as a non-notable political figure, as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Atkin

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Mayor of a town with <7000 inhabitants. Not notable enough for separate article. Delete exolon 19:27, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameNitro

[edit]

Delete. Virtually empty article. No assertion of notability. 42 Google hits for "GameNitro" and Alexa rank of "no data". ... discospinster talk 20:01, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex with Legs

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Roulette

[edit]

Two non-notable episodes of WWE RAW. Was proposed for deletion but had template removed, hence the need for AfD. Oakster (Talk) 20:05, 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 Redirected to Broad. (aeropagitica) 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broads

[edit]

Neologism; unverifiable; was prod'd, but removed. Not a dictionary Iolakana•T 20:16, 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 redirect, which is usually better than deletion of duplicate articles. Note that the afd nomination wasn't properly done (there wasn't a header or an edit link to this discussion) so people most likely missed the whole discussion. - Bobet 23:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ori friar

[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. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brunnock

[edit]

Smear article by a sockpuppet Sean Brunnock 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by User:AndyAndyAndy using the sockpuppet User:Dannyfloyd to smear my name. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy. Both accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Sean Brunnock 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Nom makes strong claims that the article's author was being malicious, and these claims check out quite well. My Alt Account 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete. Because the nominator makes a good argument for malice (as My Alt Account notes), no one other than Dannyfloyd has made a substantive contribution to the article, the article has no references, and I can find none on google, this is a CSD A6. Pan Dan 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps Sean's being a bit too sensitive. Unless there's something we don't know, AFAICT, it doesn't look like an attack page, and cannot as such be speedied as such. You might be able to invoke the delete for creation by banned user, if he was indeed banned. However, I vote to delete per WP:HOAX/WP:V for want of available information on the sujbect. Ohconfucius 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. (see my changed vote below Jdclevenger 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)) My first vote ever for a delete and I am a bit torn. As Ohconfucius might attest, I am a strong proponent of inclusion in Wikipedia. Reading the discussion page on the article, it seems that Brunnock and Dannyfloyd had a perfectly civil exchange about providing substantiation. I think preserving regionalisms is an important mission and this could well fall within that concept. I am particulary sensitve to the idea that not all verification need come from Google. After all, 'Wikipedia is not Google' suggests that we be open to non-gogglable evidence. For those of you who did research in the B.G. (before google) age you know that this can take time. So I wonder what percipitated this action.[reply]

On the other hand, I think claims of malice deserve a strong response and should be accorded the benefit of the doubt. My Alt Account stated that the Nom 'makes a good argument for malice.' Am I missing something? I mean this quite sincerely. Is there a link with further evidence and a fuller claim? Please point it out to me. All I have seen is the the claim at the top of this page. It asserts malice and asserts sockpuppetry. I will gladly change my vote to Strong Speedy Delete if Sean Brunnock can point to a more concrete reason why User:Dannyfloyd is out to smear him. Perhaps he has and I am just missing it.

On the final hand, I would change my vote to a Weak Keep on the basis of a good faith claim by someone that this has some basis in scottish fokelore, although I would prefer that the actual citation be provided.Jdclevenger 04:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look at User:Dannyfloyd, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy? There's no assertion of sockpuppetry. It's a proven fact. And I think I know where my surname comes from and what it means. --Sean Brunnock 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Jdclevenger's comment about Google. If "Brunnock" was really a notable mythological being from Scottish folklore, instead of something somebody just made up recently, it would certainly be found on Google. By comparison, I found each of the following terms from Scottish folklore easily on Google: Aos-sídhe, Sìdhichean, and Tuatha Dé Danann. But when I paired each of these terms with "Brunnock," I found no meaningful results (there was a total of one result, which used Brunnock as a county name). I think, in this case, that absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. And by the way, I also looked in Lexis, with no results. Pan Dan 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Sean Brunnock. My apologies. You did offer proof about the sockpupperty. While presumably this makes User:Dannyfloyd, a Wiki-badguy, it does not itself support your claim of malice (which as I mentioned before I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt). The heart of my comment on switching to a strong delete is motive. Do you have reason to believe that User:Dannyfloyd is doing this specifically against you? Perhaps I misconstrued the claim, "...smear my name." I took this to assert that the smear is against you personally. To fully support such a charge, I think information about possible motive would help. But perhaps what you meant was that the attack was litterally against your surname, but not directed against you yourself. Jdclevenger 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading the relevant articles. If you read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy, I provided the motive. By the way, User:Dannyfloyd does not exist. He's a sockpuppet. User:AndyAndyAndy is the puppetmaster. --Sean Brunnock 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Pan Dan. Thank you for the additional research. But I am prepared to believe that there remain pockets of information about the world that have not yet been googlized or indeed put on the net. The probability of this being the case for scottish fokelore is quite low of course, and presumably much lower than for regions such as, e.g. the Amazon, outer China, or central Africa although no doubt this is rapidally changing. Is this probability low enough to cast doubt on the article? Of course. But if there were not a charge of malice, my inclination would still be a week keep, at least for a "sufficent" period time to provide some kind of citation. My basic epistemolgoical constitution is such that I will always be highly skeptical of claims that absence of evidence is ever evidence of absence. Saddly, I will have to become less skeptical of such claims as the coverage of the net nears totality. It is an interesting side question about how one measures both the sum of verifiable human knowledge and the percentage of that on the net.Jdclevenger 17:08, 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. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity republicans

[edit]

Original research - no references cited, many unsubstantiated claims Dsreyn 20:56, 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, it's cut and pasted from another website in addition to the notability concerns. - Bobet 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guðmundur Steinn Gunnarsson

[edit]

Musician that fails tests of notability in both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Valrith 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think this article should not be deleted because mr. Guðmundur Steinn Gunnarsson is an Icelandic composer that is contributing significantly to the composition environment, has recieved national recogition and conciderable press coverage in iceland and should there for have an article. I thought the point of all this was to provide information that is true and real which this certainly is. If you want the topic of icelandic composers to be incomlete then you should delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallivan (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 September 2006
  • Delete as per Valrith.--Peta 05:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Also, on his way to become notable but not there yet. I recommend writing an article on the Icelandic Wikipedia which might serve as the base for a future English article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:40, 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 and redirect to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations as a POV fork. Problems with that article shouldn't be dealt with by starting another similar article. (aeropagitica) 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Hoax Theory

[edit]

Identical to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations except that anything critical to the hoax accusations has been removed. Algr 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user apparently created this page to avoid reaching a consensus on Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. See his contributions on the talk pages of the two articles for his statements in this regard. Numskll 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His new additions are pure fantasy. He suggests taking a multi-second film exposure in broad daylight as a way to photograph stars and the landscape at the same time. Algr

It was risky, but obviously it wasn't too risky. So what if the USSR spent only $6 billion on their moon program? They didn't get there. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing (except that with these 6 G$ Russians were close to make a moon landing, and therefore Russian space engineers don't doubt that 30 G$ were quite enough for NASA to make a successfull moon landing). Just a fact that I simply mentioned. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that if the Russians had any hint that there was a question about the truth of the Apollo program, they might have said something at some point. Wahkeenah 09:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If this page becomes part of mainstream Wikipedia, this will be under scrutiny just the same as the main page. This page is purposeless to all but those who, in fact, believe that we did not go to the moon at all. In addition, pages full of speculation aren't very helpful to someone who goes to this site believing that all included information is factual, and needs no further investigation. Edman 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this isn't the only article like that. Bubba73 (talk), 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if that's the case, then let's do something about it before it goes outside our scope of control.Edman 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I looked at it, the article Green Fireballs was an example of that. But I gave up on making the article factual many months ago, so I haven't checked it lately. Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is not another article whose truth cannot be verified, it's this one. While the article you mentioned has all of the criteria for inclusion, this one doesn't. That's why there is this discussion on whether it should be in or not. Edman 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not proposing that the green fireball article be deleted, if that is what you mean. Bubba73 (talk), 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. One article per topic is not rocket surgery. FunnyYetTasty 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read Broodlinger`s explanation for this page in the discussion page under "Starting fresh". Makes sense. Wikipedia should have an article about what Moon Hoax Theory is, the different theories, period. For instance there were no crater under the lunar lander and no dust on the landing pads. We do not need a long (and unconvincing if I may say so) explanation on why there should be none in this article. Response to the hoax theory could be done in a separate article, for instance by changing the name of the original "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" to "Rebuttal of Moon Hoax Theory". Trying to get consensus on the original "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" is not working very well. I am not even trying after seeing how other believers in the hoax are treated. It is like trying to paint a picture, with some trolls laying it on the floor, jumping on it with dirty boots, and giving it back. No, think this page is a better try for Wikipedia. Axlalta 11:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above poster is a Sock Puppet. View history: [61] What makes you qualified to decide what is convincing? Have you ever even seen a helicopter land on sand? Lots of people have, but the claim that there ought to be a crater does not come from them. I would support posting an actual 'hoax theory', but no one has ever come up with one. No hoaxer ever actually states what he thinks DID happen. Algr 16:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are almost certainly correct, and you beat me to it. Although that user has been around since April, as with some of the other hoaxsters his only "contributions" have been complaints about the Apollo hoax accusations article. Wahkeenah 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reply of Algr and Wahkeenah illustrate my point in an excellent way. Groundless and rude accusations of me beeing a sockpuppet. Far out reasoning (helicopter??). "There are no hoax theory". Hey Algr, the hoax theory says that pictures of astronauts allegedly on the moon was taken in a studio setting on earth. Anyone expect me to use my free time to achive consensus with rude people you can`t reason with? No, the hoax believers and the Apollo fans just don't get along to well. Apollo fans are in clear majority, and they are making the article of what the hoax theory is about. Their target is not to describe the hoax theory to readers, their target seems to be to discredit the hoax theory. And Wikipedia get an awful article on the subjeckt. No, hoax beliver are better suited to describe the hoax theory, Apollo fans are better suited at criticizing it. There could be a page for both, as described in my comments above. Axlalta 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your only "contributions" to wikipedia in your 5 or 6 months have to do with this page, so it is reasonable to conclude that you're a sockpuppet. And it is the hoaxsters who are the rude ones, as they refuse to discuss anything. They constantly rail about the article being "biased", when their real agenda is to present a biased page, giving only their "side" of the story. Or several sides. "The" hoax theory is an incorrect characterization. First, because there are several, not just one; and second, because their only "theory" is their suspicions, because they have no actual evidence, just questions, which can easily be knocked down by explanations that are consistent with science and technology, and within the context of the historical record of Mercury-Gemini-Apollo. That by itself doesn't prove Apollo is true, but it introduces reasonable doubt into the hoaxsters' arguments. The article does, in fact, try to explain what the hoax "theories" are. It does present the claim of some (but not all) hoaxsters that the landing stuff was done in studios on earth despite the lack of any evidence of that claim. If anything, the article gives too much credence to the hoaxster side. The hoaxsters complain about the article, but every suggestion to "improve" it boils down to presenting a one-sided view. Wahkeenah 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of an article about the hoax theory is to describe it, not judge it. The "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" article has lots of arguments against the hoax which may be "original research or unverified claims", something to avoid. If a telescope could show detaljed pictures of the alleged landing sites, that would be dependable and verifiable arguments for the article. But let us avoid "original research or unverified claims", with links to strange hoax-rebuttal internet sites. Axlalta 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've tried multiple times to convert it into an article which describes the hoax theories in accordance with the NPOV policies (particularly without giving the hoaxers opinions undue weight and in a similar manner other pseudoscience articles). When we do so, the Apollo-deniers revert it back to the current mess. In any case, this isn't the place to discuss the problems with the "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" article, they have no bearing on a blatant PoV fork. Mark Grant 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Axlalta, whose lack of righteous indignation lends further credence to his being a sockpuppet, also must think we were born yesterday. It is very difficult to fully "describe the hoax" without bringing up the questions the hoaxsters raise. But user Mark Grant is right, that discussion belongs on the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations page. Wahkeenah 14:53, 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. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derel

[edit]

Worthless neologism. Valrith 21:16, 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 (borderline speedy, unverifiable). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezeonu

[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Tarret 21:36, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Night of Appreciation for Sabu

[edit]

Non-notable wrestling event TJ Spyke 21:47, 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. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesis

[edit]

Reads like an advertisement Martin.duke 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement, and contains multiple POV statements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.duke (talk • contribs)

This nomination was incomplete. Yomanganitalk 00:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani, what specifically is required? I believe I followed the deletion instructions step-by-step. Martin.duke 15:03, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah AbdulRahman

[edit]

Apparently non-notable writer. Hard to say for sure, though: this name is extremely common and is most likely rendered incomplete in the article's title. A Google search brings up Abdullah Abdulrahman Mohammed Al Abdulkarim, Abdullah AbdulRahman Fahd-Al-Shammari, Abdullah Abdulrahman Al-Shraim, Abdullah Abdulrahman Ahmed Allatas, Abdullah Abdulrahman Al Shuraim, Mohamed Abdullah Abdulrahman, Abdullah Abdulrahmen Al-Mogbel, Abdullah Abdulrahman Dahem, Abdullah Abdulrahman Abdulazeez Bin Shibraen, etc., etc. Until the rest of his name is determined, his notability cannot be, and in the meantime this article is useless. There's no evidence that he passes WP:BIO at any rate. wikipediatrix 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless he can be idenitified and is notable. Strong suggestion creator is notified by nominator and asked to clarify article. Clarification within article could lead to nomination being withdrawn. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I started to do just that, but thought better of it after seeing that his talk page consisted entirely of complaints of vandalism, creating nonsense articles, and posting "may allah reward the ones who conducted them and destroy the disbelievers" to the July 2005 London bombings article. Yikes. I'd just as soon not attempt communication. wikipediatrix 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I quite see your point. Fiddle Faddle 05:59, 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 speedy delete as vandalism. Having reviewed the edits made by Bulish.cx (talk · contribs), and by xyr previous incarnations as Bulish.org (talk · contribs) and Bulish.net (talk · contribs), none of which have not been vandalism, it is clear that this is hoax vandalism and part of a long-standing pattern of vandalism by this person. Uncle G 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Luther X

[edit]

Hoax, neither the actor or any of the movies listed exist TJ Spyke 22:36, 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 Computerjoe's talk 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky walk

[edit]

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It is realted to the various other AfD and CfD nominations for trivial items by the same author/major contribitor. It isn't even important whether this thing exists, or whether you can find it in google. It's as notable as a leather belt, which is fortunatley absent. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I fail to see how this is an indiscriminate collection of facts. The article describes an existing Halloween phenomenon that even I, eternal non-American, know about. Trivial items need to be covered too, as not everyone outside the US will know about it. It could use some sources, though, and I would prefer it to be renamed to Halloween haunt which is the more common term for this type of event. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable halloween tradition but the name does need revision. Growing up in the Midwest US we always had "Haunted Mazes" that we would walk through. Agne 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cubist

[edit]

2 EP, presumably self published, no mention of a label, or touring. fails WP:MUSIC ccwaters 23:35, 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 Move; since resonant Trans-Neptunian Object does not exist it cannot be redirected to that; so a move seems logical. Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twotino

[edit]

Allegedly an astronomy term, but one that doesn't seem to have a lot of traction. Gogle results showed nothing on the first two pages besides wiki mirrors and linkfarm/textscraping/keyword-spoofing spam sites. All the objects that would have this moniker are redlinks. -Mask 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete surely isn't the same thing as a redirect (which I don't argue with). If the right thing is a redirect, well, that's a keep, just with new content in the main article and in Trans-Neptunian Object. The term is noteworthy enough to keep in Wikipedia. E. I. Chang had a number of co-authors, too, who also use the term.Derek Balsam 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite a few non-Chiang papers where the term is used? That would be helpful. George J. Bendo 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply meant that Chiang was not the sole author on those papers. His co-authors obviously agree with the content and wording of their own papers, therefore they also agree to the usage of that term. I agree with you that the term is not widely used, see my original comment above. But it is certainly used by other people than Chiang, for example see Maholtra (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/faculty/malhotra_preprints/04-TPF_Darwin.pdf#search=%22twotino%20-%22in%20astronomy%2C%20a%20twotino%22%20-wikipedia%22) (that is a presentation, not a peer-reviewed paper). Just because it is not widely used does not mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. The term is notable. There is, as far as I know, no requirement that terms in Wikipedia can't come from papers which are happen to have an author in common. Even non-peer reviewed usages can satisfy the notability requirement. If you think that the term should simply be a redirect, by all means, be bold. But in my opinion a delete would not be proper. Derek Balsam 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to resonant TNO. (count as Delete). It appears that the term has not been adopted by other resonance theoreticians (e.g. Malhotra, Nesforny), nor by the most recent and most quoted classification papers (Elliot et al, 2006). We need an article for resonant TNO instead. Eurocommuter 08:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I should have added that E.I. Chiang co-authored the above mentioned DES survey (Elliot et al 2006). Resonant TNOs are on prominent place there, "Plutinos" are mentioned once, in double quotes! No twotinos. Eurocommuter 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Eugene Chiang has chosen not to use this term in his updated (Aug 2006) and very interesting A Brief History of Trans-Neptunian Space. Eurocommuter 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Since the term exists there should be something at Twotino, however since the term doesn't appear to be widely accepted it is probably better to redirect than have an article. Chaos syndrome 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to trans-neptunian. There is not enough specific information regarding the characteristics or uniqueness of the twotinos. Whether or not it is a widely accepted term can be discussed within TNO. But since it is just a type of TNO that has a different orbit, a single paragraph in TNO should be enough to cover the existence of and describe what twotinos as well as plutinos. --Exodio 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A remark on the good point by Exodio above. Is the orbital resonance the only characteristic? I understand the jury is still out on this. The objects in low- order resonances could have been captured by migrating Neptune (like Pluto-Malhotra). Alternatively, some resonances could prove to have distinctive origin/physical characteristics. Precisely a kind of subject for resonant TNO article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized operating agency

[edit]

Anyone who understands this has the jump on me. Delete. BlueValour 23:46, 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. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potemkin Security

[edit]

Delete: Neologism.  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) 23:54, 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. (aeropagitica) 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th New Forest North (Eling) Sea Scouts

[edit]

Reason: As per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting general policy of not having articles for organisations smaller than area/county level, I think that this article should be removed. All information in this article has been included in other articles, and is no longer needed or desired. Horus Kol 07:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem particularly notable. The policy would benefit from having a line which made a clear statement about troops though, rather than implying it. The RulesStandards page[64] states that "Generally, an entity smaller than a Council (such as a troop or district) should not have its own article, unless it has done something truly exceptional or unique." Jll 10:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to be a standard Sea Scouts' unit; I can't see why this group should be notable. --jergen 09:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_7&oldid=1116878402"