Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

Guide to deletion

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of peace[edit]

POV, unnotable as compared to other demonstrations that have occured against U.S. actions related to the War on Terror, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Controversey articles over the 9/11 Attacks, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq can handle this just fine, thank you. --Kitch 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked UPI and the Washingtonpost [1] [2] were major news outlets and wikipedia can handle this just fine, thank you. grazon 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- A mere news event can go into WikiNews. Unless this does something notable, merely existing does not mean it should have its own article. --Kitch 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Washington Post coverage is a local city news article. See this link for the "Metro" category market in the top left corner. That's why the story is filed under the "Metro" section and not the "National" or "Politics" section. Remember, the Washington Post is not just a national newspaper, it is also a local and regional newspaper. There is no coverage of this event in the New York Times at time of writing[3].As for United Press International, this is a newswire service, and like its rivals, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse and so on, it carries many minor stories as it primarily services news outlets (its main customers) with as a great a choice of news as possible, and is not primarily driven by editorial selection of stories. A Newswire is not comparable to a major newspaper in terms of news selection. Bwithh 13:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a week long event and the arrest of jim winkler alone makes this important enough to be on wikpedia. grazon 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Article needs serious work, but seems to meet WP:ORG and WP:RS. Article should be focusing on the organization, rather than the demonstration, as that what the title reflects. eaolson 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no limit on amount of storage space we can use. Other marches and events like this get coverage, and it hurts nothing to have an encyclopediac article on it. You going to Afd Million Man March in 10 years as no longer relevant? · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, enough coverage for notableness. · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but wikify and clean-up. --Ineffable3000 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. The cites are to small, "news-in-brief" sorts of articles, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to conform to Wikipedia standards. It's just another demonstration that will be forgotten in days. --Aaron 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, not encyclopedic. Tbeatty 06:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. As an added bonus, the article is unwikified, written in first person ("our"), and references are not inline. Andjam 06:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press release. Gazpacho 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote things before they are noticed. Gazpacho 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just formatted the article to help wikify it; however there needs to be a section added for against the Declaration of Peace as well as for. -- Casmith 789 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs some major TLC, but I think we can salvage it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is preliminary, because notability is still a bit questionable. however, the event is being covered in major newspapers, so it's not a clear-cut delete case and it may end up being clearly worthy (by my standards). deleting the article right now tends to close off options, because there is a strong bias against re-creation of deleted content. there's no harm in waiting a week to decide.Derex 09:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep 2420 references to this in the news today. Clearly has crossed the notability threshold. Even more notable than Lauren B. Weiner was (inside joke for T). Derex 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You got to use quotation marks and targetted terms when searching google or google news or google whatever. Otherwise you get lots of false hits like this. If you use quotation marks for "declaration of peace" and add in term "iraq", you get only ~81 hits - mainly local news coverage, including local city news coverage from the Washington Post (notice that it's filed under the "Metro" section rather than "National" or "Politics"[4]. I didn't see any other major newspapers. Zero coverage in the New York Times for instance Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply fair enough. with quotaion marks, it still gets well over 60 newspaper articles, including the washington post and several major city dailys, and is carried on the upi wire service. (it also gets +400 unique non-news hits). that meets my standards. i frankly don't see what's bad about providing information on what's clearly a reasonably large event, as indicated by the geographical breadth of the coverage). isn't that what we're supposed to do: provide neutral information about things people care about? people seem to care about this, as evidenced by widespread coverage. Derex 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, if you want to use my notability standard on Weiner, I voted Delete--Tbeatty 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war or Delete if not Merged Event has only had local news/small newspaper and independent internet media (e.g. indymedia coverage so far (about 81 hits on Google News). Special week and special day declarations are a dime a dozen. If this gets any major traction sufficient for major news sources, than promote the article. Otherwise, its just another protest event. It has some national organization, so ok to include in the main protests article but not for its own article. Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnbrownsbody 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete By itself it is a local news story. As part of a greater whole, it might be notable. Either way it does not stand alone as its own article. Maadio 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morton devonshire 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion. Perhaps in a few months it will be possible to separate hype from fiction. Guy 23:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Protests against the Iraq War. Of the other protests described in that article, the most recent one to have a separate article, September 24, 2005 anti-war protest reported an attendance of 150,000 people in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post's coverage of this event reports 75 attendees at the "kick-off" event for this protest in D.C. on the 21st. I think the difference in scales is compelling evidence that this is insufficiently notable for a separate article. Choess 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note of order: By precedent, and I invoke the deletion of George Allen Smith, which stated that routine publicity is not enough to make a subject notable enough for an article. --Kitch 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war What Bwithh said. Edison 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:05 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. Stilgar135 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- GLGerman 10:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. This is up for speedy delete, which I'm accepting, so I'll close out this debate. Objections seem unlikely. Herostratus 04:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand savage[edit]

This article fails WP:N and therefore should be deleted. It has no Google Hits and is very likely a hoax or practical joke. --Ineffable3000 02:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom --Ineffable3000 02:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Leuko 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I hate having to assume that every time an article is written describing the subject as "gay" it has to be an attack page, but that's what recent changes patrol will do to you. It might be speediable. Dina 02:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Good grief. --Masamage 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I don't see an assertion of notability beyond the usual peacock terms and hyperbole. Tagged as such. MER-C 03:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or merge to List of Dish Network channels. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be held outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dish Network Channel Grid[edit]

Wikipedia is not TV Guide. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make it more like List of DirecTV channels which is better written, gives context and not just a list as Dish Network Channel Grid. TV Newser 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Merge with List of Dish Network channels. TV Newser 07:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if one does that, though, isn't it redundant? --Dennisthe2 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not redundant. One list is for DirecTV and the other is for Dish Network. 71.195.240.16 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my comment (above). --Dennisthe2 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to List of DirecTV channels; having two formatted-differently but otherwise identical articles is a bad idea. Alternatively, simply delete. --MCB 05:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above; they are for two different providers 71.195.240.16 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per Dennisthe2. 1ne 06:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TV Newser EnsRedShirt 07:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - violates WP:NOT. [5] --Ineffable3000 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Channel lineups change. Anomo 16:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Presidents change too. Should we delete President of the United States because it will have to change in a couple years? (OHH, SNAP!) Wavy G 03:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ineffable3000. --Aaron 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:10 (UTC)
DirecTV list and Dish Network lists are NOT the same, as someone incorrectly noted. Thus, if a list of DirecTV channels is good, then a Dish Network list is also fine. If one is deleted, both should be. The problem is the can of worms being opened up if they are kept, because one could then argue that a listing of any cable systems line-up would also be relevant. I'd delete both listings, but I would replace with a thorough listing of cable channels available on a nationwide basis in the U.S. That list could easily include the Dish Network and/or DirecTV channels (if applicable). Indeed, a channel's inclusion on one of these systems (or Comcast) would serve as excellent criteria for inclusion on this comprehensive channel listing. Goeverywhere 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the both or none argument. I also don't have a problem with combining both into one complete grid, that can also include cable systems. Though there is one problem with that.. While DirecTV and Dish Network are both national satelite providers (With the same channel numbers no matter where your at in the country), Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and other cable providers are still very regional with channel numbers that vary from city to city. I think it will be a useful list, but impossible to control on the Cable side. EnsRedShirt 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Could be useful reference to someone looking up what channel something's on. Wavy G 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have DISH, and can think of times such a list would be useful. Merge, per user:Mbcossette's comments below. Also, as someone above noted, DISH and DirecTV aren't the same company, so redirecting is a bad idea, akin to redirecting FOX to CBS. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is already a List of Dish Network channels. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That list was created just a few hours ago, possibly in response to this AfD. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also have a source we can use to contribute to this grid: dishchannelchart.com. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems useful and verifiable. OBILI ® ± 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting information regarding the numbering schemes etc Aika 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wrote this article. I felt that since DirecTV, Sirius Radio, and XM all had channel guides, so should Dish Network. Someone copied the entire article verbatem and revamped the List of Dish Network channels. The list originally just listed the stations in two or three columns with no channel numbers, which in my mind is the reason to have a list. Since the AfD I have updated the Grid, bringing the channel names up to date and have even re-copied my work over to the List of Dish Network channels. I am planning to add more information. I've already put in about 12 hours into this project and I'm still learning the finer parts of the Wikipedia coding. I feel that if someone wants to put their cable listings up as well, they should be able to. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, but it is a reference tool. If someone is thinking about getting cable or satellite TV, Wikipedia should be the ultimate source of information about all your options. Mbcossette 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Dish Network channels. --Caldorwards4 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dish Network channels and do not keep. Article names for similar article should follow a common form and format. Also the author supports the delete and we don't lose any information by doing a delete or merge. Vegaswikian 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OBILI --Bill.matthews 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Though for the life of me I don't know why List of multiracial people has been around since 2003... Grand master ka 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interracial couples[edit]

Unreferenced list of people. With "race" being as difficult to define as it is (except in specific societies which categorize people by race, such as Apartheid South Africa or the Old U.S. South) how can we tell what an "interracial couple" is? Under what racial categories do "Alexander the Great and his wife Roxana of Persia" or "King Hussein of Jordan and (1) Princess Muna, (2) Queen Noor" belong exactly? up+l+and 23:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just a few questions: it seems unlikely that this will be kept at this point, but just in case it is, I would like some comments from those wishing to keep it. I have not found any policy page explaining which racial classification system is to be considered normative to use on Wikipedia, and I have some other issues as well.

For instance, I always find myself stuck when trying to determine whether a person belongs to the Nordic race or the Alpine race, and I also frequently confuse people of the Alpine race with those of the Mediterranean race - could we please have some clear instructions? (I assume any couple with an Alpine partner and a Nordic one has to be included in this list.)
Without good pictures, determining whether a persone is dolichocephalic or brachycephalic can be pretty difficult. Perhaps we could make sure we have a clear set of skull measurements in an infobox in each biography?
And how are we going to do with people of African descent — I think "negroes" is the proper terminology, am I right? — are we going to use the one-drop rule? It does after all have a long tradition of established use. For instance, it has been reported in the Swedish press that new prime minister-elect Fredrik Reinfeldt has a great great grandfather who was a "mulatto from New York".[6] Does that make him a negro? Does it make his relationship with his wife Filippa an interracial one? Or do we first have to trace all her ancestors five generations back, to make sure she doesn't also have a similar amount of "negro" ancestry?

Well, there are many questions, but with the help of the enlightened users of Wikipedia, I'm sure this can all be figured out. up+l+and 05:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite part is "in fiction." Jane Austin never explicitly says that Elizabeth Bennet is white, you know. I have a feeling that was an interracial couple. Also, I don't recall Daniel Defoe saying that Robinson Crusoe was white. (The one drop rule should definitely apply, and then there will be no interracial couples, as everyone has a drop of everything.) Geogre 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They all fit in as being members of the human race. And with the (very) odd exception the only interracial couples in that sense are fictional. As it stands this is a strong POV risk and troll-bait, as well as serving no encyclopedic purpose. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion it's not that there's a POV risk/troll bait, it's that the entries are unverified and the definition of race is unclear. ColourBurst 00:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and for listcruft (a list impossible to maintain or make comprehensive, even if the subject weren't already impossible to categorize). -Markeer 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad place to go. Delete - CheNuevara 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dylan 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and also confusing. It also assumes many people are white and doesn't explain which race someone is. T REX_speak 02:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic purpose is right. --Masamage 03:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - original creator of the list here. JScott06 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and that this list can go on ad infinitum. --physicq210 04:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea what the point of this article is. --Dennisthe2 04:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is bad (and doesn't assert importance) but the nomination is invalid. The idea that these people are in interracial couples can be verified through media reports. JASpencer 09:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It shouldn't be deleted for the original reason stated but as others have said the list could go forever. While there may be arguments as to how each race should be classified or how one can determine to which race they belong the term is not a mythical concept. This article needs to be tidied up. The race of both partners, full names, links to partners who are on wikipedia (Iman-model), etc. would be useful. It could be helpful when people are doing research on race relations and as a link to a more detailed article on interracial marriage and relationships.TMacII 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unreferenced list. It also gets pretty silly as it branches into interplanetary couples, such as William Riker and Deanna Troi. Also, in most cases it doesn't even bother to say what races the various couples are, thus negating the sole potential research value of the list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unmaintainable list, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Maintaining this list would involve wikipedians indefinitely racially classifying people and deciding which couples don't match. That's not just unencyclopedic, it's downright creepy and it debases wikipedia as a whole. --IslaySolomon 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would we need to stray from WP:V for this? We'd just make sure that a reliable source says that both the partners are from different races. JASpencer 16:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the unmaintainable list factor -- Tawker 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The difficulty in maintaining and verifying this list, and protecting it from wrongdoers is just to high to justify its continued existence.-- danntm ^T _C 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cow Delete This Crap Now Atrocious list with problems that have already been identified. This will have a ton of POV concerns and edit wars in the future if it stays.UberCryxic 17:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, just because a page is vulnerable or attractive to vandals is not a reason to remove it, second, what exactly is wrong with the list? I understand if some people find this somehow offensive, but this too is not a reason to remove it, if we started removing everything that offended someone, this encyclopedia would be alot smaller. — Joshua Johaneman 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it has a lot more to do with its premise being subjective and unverifiable. --Masamage 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per joshua.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way to be sure who isn't. Edison 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above/nom. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:10 (UTC)
Delete. Cicero UK 00:25, 25 September 2006 (GMT)
Delete, mare's nest. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, verging on WP:OR. Daniel .Bryant 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bizarre, ridiculous, and useless. It's inherently POV, and there's no point in an NPOV one, as no one knows what "race" is and less than no one cares about miscegenation. Geogre 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was ready to consider this a possible improvable-with-references candidate but the majority of the couples listed are just not notable as couples. Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren is one thing, but half the people on this list ... Let's call it time this is a "so what?" and call it a day. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what defines a couple? A 5 minute fling? A marriage? Impossible to maintain. - Longhair 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even worse than the usual abuses of the list-type article. —Encephalon 15:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are three words in the title other than "of," and the only one a substantial number of people are likely to agree on the meaning of is "list." And that's just the valid objection—I have invalid ones too.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egad where do I start? Inherently POV, indiscriminate, and unmaintainable this list has it all. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
""Delete"" This article is pointless and has to relevant agenda to an encyclopedia. What is it's signifigance? If researched, what kind of information does it provide?Americanbeauty415 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep because I don't see what the big deal is. And the {{fact}} tags strike me as extremely bad faith. As if a citation is needed that "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and "Jungle Fever" are about interracial couples! Gazpacho 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do away with it! Endorse Calieber's eloquent summary. — mark ✎ 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 05:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ben Aveling 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a little too much Mad Jack 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless list Funky Monkey (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started to vote the other way until I saw Geogre's rationale that "no one cares about miscegenation". Right. But when it comes to "marrying black", it just "somehow" hasn't happened to you -- and better not happen to your daughter, eh?. Reminds me of folks who indignantly insist that racism in the U.S. is a figment of the black imagination, while ignoring those "asides" made at Christmas Dinner by Uncle Archie, Cousin Georgia-Sue and Grandpa Bubba about not hiring, not renting to, and just not liking them. Please. Some of us remember when miscegnation was illegal in most of the U.S., integrated anything was illegal in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and immigration of people of color was de facto illegal in Australia, New Zealand and other "white havens" around the world. This list documents, even if amateurishly, major change-in-progress headed in the other direction. And hope for human oneness Lethiere 05:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac Database[edit]

An advertorial stub about an automotive website (Alexa:475,528). While there's enough here to warrant adding links to the Cadillac & LaSalle articles, there's really no need to have an article on the website itself. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn web site. --MCB 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:10 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RFerreira 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, the subject of this article lacks notability that is demonstrable throuh reliable sources. The state of the article, and the amount of cleanup warranted, were not raised as reasons for its proposed deletion, and are not compelling reasons to prevent deletion. With that said, arguments that solicitation for votes in web comic polls is proof of the comic's lack of notability are also not convincing, as comics such as Inverloch boost their rankings by asking for votes (which is one of the reasons Inverloch is #1 at topwebcomics.com). If the comic wins an award or gets significant press coverage, or the site qualifies under WP:WEB, (yet) another go at this can be had. For now, however, Abstract Gender is not sufficiently notable. JDoorj a m Talk 04:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Gender[edit]

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Gender. The article contains no assertion of notability, and no third party references or sources from reliable outlets. The site has an Alexa rank of 125,000. We have one guideline for web material WP:WEB, we should start applying it with the same standard and integrity to webcomics as we do other websites. - Hahnch e n 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a repost. Tagged as such. MER-C 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've removed the tag. The original deleted article was created as webspam a few months after the launch of the comic. Although I'm not one of the pedantic, "content must be the same for g4" people, I think taking this through AFD would generate a clearer consensus. - Hahnch e n 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Maybe it's Yet Another Webcomic, but the article has potential. --Dennisthe2 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources or verification as to popularity. --MCB 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. HGANBAdmins 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What improvements do you suggest? -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and continue to improve, of course). It has potential, and also, non-induvidualy-notable KeenSpot comics seem to be afforded an article because they're with KeenSpot. AG's close ties with The Wotch and a number of others should give them the same benifit, no? (Actualy, existing should, but I'm not going to press that. Today, anyway.) --Kinkoblast 14:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd like to point out that KeenSpot comics are a different matter, since they seem to meet the third criteria of WP:WEB, which is "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Pleather 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: By that criteria, any of the crap on Geocities is notable, and, more directly, less-popular comics hosted on comicgenisis are more notable in the wikipedia sense than self-hosted pages? --Kinkoblast 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the votes above just show the farcical gulf between the application of WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:RS to general websites and webcomics. We delete other websites with no assertion of notability such as Pokemon-Safari, Final Fantasy Shrine, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, each of them a hell of a lot more popular than Abstract Gender. How are you going to "improve" an encyclopedia article on an unencyclopedic nn subject, that reasoning is just a reiteration of "Keep - I like it". - Hahnch e n 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hahnchen should be commended for presenting the issues at hand in a fair, well-reasoned manner. The discussion of other webcomic's current presence on WP is extraneous. The bottom line is that this needs to meet WP:WEB. And unless I'm missing something, it doesn't. Pleather 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with the understood caveat that the article needs improvement.Johnbrownsbody 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is improving the content of the article going to change the notability of the website itself? This is a quantitative issue, not a qualitative one. It would probably be helpful, all around, to stay focused on addressing the issues raised by the AfD nominator.Pleather 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What improvements do you, Pleather, suggest? -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This webcomic is minor- there are also no reliable sources to [[WP:|verify it]]. How can you tell it's minor? For starters, on its home page, it has a big "DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR US!" at the top, which should be a dead giveaway. It has an unremarkable Alexa ranking , and only 29 unique sites link to it, all of which are blogs, forums, or submission webcomic directories. Keeping under "the article needs improvement" is not a valid argument- it doesn't address the question of whether the article should even exist.

--Wafulz 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As thewebcomiclist.com has been cited before in other articles and debates... (an example is http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Exterminatus_Now "The comic is rather popular, listed 65th in The Webcomic List"), Abstract Gender is listed as #50, which is -- I might say, rather high in the list, with the other comics near it mostly listed on Wikipedia.
Delete per nom and Wafulz. The forum doesn't seem to have many members either. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only 1620 members... seems like a lot to me.
  - Comment - This is absolutely misleading. 1620 members isn't a lot for a start, but the reason for this number is that the forums are hosted by another webcomic, which is a lot more popular. - Hahnch e n 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete; clearly fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Subject already deleted by previous AfD. ergot 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hahnchen and Ergot. This article is Unverifiable through third-party reputable reliable sources, and WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ergot and Hahnchen, usual failures of WP:V and WP:RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and like-minded above. "Improve" is meaningless - the article is fine, it's the subject which is just not notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone can explain why Exterminatus Now deserves to be kept when this one does not? Exterminatus Now is no more notable than this comic (arguably less if you go by its only source, thewebcomiclist.com). At the very least it should meet the same fate as this one, whatever that is. AG has apparently, looking at its archives, improved both in readership and quality since the last AFD a year ago, unlike many webcomics that die off quickly. Diagonalfish 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may also be interested in nominating such gems such as DoomDaze, Lowroad75 and Tween (webcomic). There are many other nn-comics on WP, like Later That Day..., Rogue Robot and Fishtanked, but it's more important to nominate the first 3 as they are linked from the list of webcomics advertising portal. - Hahnch e n 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kagerou (webcomic)[edit]

I tagged this webcomic as unsourced over a week ago, and notified the author who started the article. This webcomic, seen here and it's LiveJournal community here, is just one of many trivial interchangeable websites. There is no assertion of notability, its traffic rank on Alexa is 450,000. - Hahnch e n 00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not well-read in general webcomicry, but I've heard of this one with some frequency. I would like some assertion of notability to be made, however. --Masamage 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. JASpencer 09:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of coverage by reliable third-party sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fubumquat[edit]

I can find no references either for the fruit or for the tree. If it exists, it must be original research, and hence ineligible for wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The author claims that there exists evidence to back the claim - but there's nothing about it online! Even about the fumber tree - there's no scientific data whatsoever to support this article. Delete, until the author finds something to verify this. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V ( and there were some date changes in the history which add to the feeling it is a hoax). Yomangani ^talk 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this tree sounds an awful lot like a kumquat, and accordingly sounds a lot like something made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, obvious hoax, author's only contrib(s). Zero Google hits for fubumquat, limebumquat, etc. I'm going to keep an eye on this user. --MCB 06:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most probably a hoax, the genus comes from SE Asia, why should this one originate in Mali? DAHordle 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above. Unless the author can provide some evidence of it, this is at best unverifiable, but most likely a Hoax. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:13 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Ludvig 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; obvious hoax. Mentioned in Ivorian "folk tales dating to the 5th century", in spite of Ivorian history only being traceable back to the 1460s. ergot 16:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as non-notable webcomic per nominator. JDoorj a m Talk 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Arcadia[edit]

Another unsourced and non notable webcomic, seen here. This webcomic was suspended in August this year, and its current Alexa rank at 180,000 may be slightly misleading. The Alexa rank 3 months ago was 130,000. As the other webcomics nominated today, there are no reliable sources and no assertion of notability. Searching for "anime arcadia" on Google largely brings up irrelevent links, and if you add the webcomic writer in the search string, it brings up around 40 links + 40 links maximum. - Hahnch e n 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Amos[edit]

While this article makes claims of notability, it fails WP:BIO. There are 6 unique hits for the subject name and his signature contribution, titled "Queer magazine". All of them appear to be either promotional material or from sources not suitable for this project. Speedy deletion template removed by creator. Finally, it is likely due to user name that this is a vanity article. Erechtheus 00:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a speedy because it asserts notability. MER-C 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinded vote and upgraded to Strong Delete on account of vandalism. --Dennisthe2 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Verkhovensky 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfD template removed by 69.5.141.31. Erechtheus 06:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Update: template removed twice. Erechtheus 07:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Update: template removed by 69.5.141.62. Erechtheus 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone should probably include Amos Palm Publications in this AfD as well. --141.156.232.179 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EmlenMud[edit]

PROD removed without discussion. Ariticle does not assert importance or meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 00:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I have a (perhaps unreasonable) suspicion that this is more Young Zaphod NiMUD-related spam. In any event, it's a non-notable mud. Nandesuka 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (comic)[edit]

You can see this webcomic here. There are no assertions of notability made in the article, and no professional reviews/commentary etc can be found on Google. An Alexa rank of 300,000 suggests that it is not popular. Note, on the Alexa "sites linking in" report, the Wikipedia list of webcomics is on top, does that mean most incoming links come from that infamous advertising board? - Hahnch e n 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not even the slightest hint of notability established and article contains nothing but a small outline and a list of characters. WP is not an advertising medium for the world's pet projects. I actually thought it looks pretty funny, but with such a complete infrastructure of webcomics sites, there seems little point in dragging so many onto WP without them establishing some notability. QuagmireDog 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Highway 91[edit]

Non-notable. "Article" composed of one sentence -Nv8200p talk 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I have added terminus information... surely there must be more that can be mentioned. That an article needs to be expanded isn't a reason to delete. --W.marsh 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add this. There is nothing notable about Minnesota State Highway 91 -Nv8200p talk 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roads are not inherently notable. - CheNuevara 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am under the impression that a general consensus exists that state highways generally have their own articles, regardless of notability. Hence the "state route naming conventions" link at the top of the Afd page. Will change to delete if its demonstrated that I've misunderstood. Dina 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Transportation and geography. But this needs serious expansion. --Roninbk _{t c #} 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all state numbered primary highways are notable. Kirjtc2 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing inthe article to show why it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. This is not Route 66. Where is there an official policy that every state highwat is entitled to an article, even if devoid of meaningful content?Edison 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a state highway like any other. See Washington State Route 900 for another such debate, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. State highways deserve articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, state highways have been deemed to be notable. Second, article length is not a reason to delete an article, only a reason to mark it as a stub. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State Highways, as most modes of transit, are inherently notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per danntm. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:18 (UTC)
Keep—per Dina. Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All state numbered highways are notable. --Holderca1 13:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Remember, State Routes are noteable. Even so, Noteability is used becuse Non-Noteable subjects don't have enough verifiable sources. Roads have many, many, many of these in the form of the various governments.
Keep as is customary. Gazpacho 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. The fact that it's a stub should have no bearing on the outcome of this debate. -- NORTH ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It lets you move smoothly, so move on, please! EyeMD 18:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Comics[edit]

There's quite a few absolutely nn-webcomics which I haven't yet nominated because they're still orphaned links and will never get any spamming attention. The guy who wrote this article though, had the cheek to link it from the webcomics article though. It's hosted on Tripod, which makes it even worse than the free webcomic hosts Comic Genesis. There's absolutely zero chance of this surviving AFD, although it does have a link to the author's myspace. You could actually speedy this, but it would take an admin with more common sense than pedantic process following. - Hahnch e n 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely NN. Andrew Levine 01:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --MCB 06:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Hús ö nd 17:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Webcomic articles purge of 2006? —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production use[edit]

Written like a dictionary definition -Nv8200p talk 01:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if anywhere should be in wiktionary. GrahameS 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom. MER-C 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom. --Dennisthe2 05:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Michael Kinyon 12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Charlie Kulp and delete redirect. Daniel .Bryant 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Flying Farmer" Charlie Kulp[edit]

Possibly non-notable aerobatics flyer. Has performed at air shows for 60 years, but low on Google hits and news mentions. Neutral. Andrew Levine 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems significant enough. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Charlie Kulp, with a redirect from "The Flying Farmer" for good measure. --Dennisthe2 05:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Dennisthe2. The article needs references, but if the claims are true he sounds notable enough. Wmahan . 06:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Charlie Kulp per Dennisthe2. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep but rename to Hispanic and Latino politics in the United States. I know that I am disregaring several "delete" suggestions below, so let me explain why. First, let me point out that deleting an article containing original research is not the proper remedy; the proper remedy in this case is editing. One editor assesses this article as inherently OR, which is grounds for deletion, but I don't think that has been established. For example, this Gsearch comes back with more than 100,000 hits, and looking through the first ten, one sees the domains include the Annenberg Public Policy Center, USNews, UPenn, etc. This is clearly a subject of informed and scholarly debate, and although the current incarnation of the article could use with a lot more sourcing, there is no question these sources exist. Finally, in terms of analogy and precedent, not that there are at least five analogous articles about the Black constituency in the U.S., namely: Garveyism, Black nationalism, Black populism, African American leftism, and Black conservatism. Surely an even larger group has enough effect on politics to generate one article? --- Deville (Talk) 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics and Politics[edit]

Delete I am sorry, but this article really is a personal essay and contains original research. Jersey Devil 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an original research essay. --Wafulz 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per commentary. --Dennisthe2 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'; OR/POV essay. --MCB 06:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article definately needs context (and I've started to provide some) but it is an important issue in American politics. The OR/POV issues should be dealt within the article. Perhaps it should be renamed "The Hispanic vote in the United States". JASpencer 08:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, hard to maintain and verify, inherently POV.--Hús ö nd 17:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hispanics are not a unified force in politics.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One, that's not why we're reviewing for deletion. Two, try telling that to Loretta Sanchez. --Dennisthe2 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, the article is basically a cut and paste work off the main article on Hispanics. And, such an article is also needed for the template on Latinos. And, while you're add it also work on deleting the Hispanics and Religion article for the same reason. Geez, have some patience. Also, wouldn't it be great if someone informed you about articles up for deletion like what's done for images that are put up for deletion. It's also amazing how anyone can vote for deletion, especially those who have no idea about the direction of Latino-related articles on Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please don't resort to personal attacks against me. I find this comment particularly offensive considering the effort I have put into latino/Latin American related articles "especially those who have no idea about the direction of Latino-related articles on Wikipedia". Completely unnecessary.--Jersey Devil 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Comments on talk pages doesn't sound like a lot of effort. --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JuanMuslim that this is a cut and paste from the Hispanic article. JMejia7704 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marks up[edit]

Non-notable children's game. Looks like something made up in school one day. Andrew Levine 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Andrew, it is a fairly common game played in Australia, and although it may not be known overseas, it is well-known in parts of Australia. I was expanding a stub on the Aussie Rules page, but I am fairly new here and still learning the ropes and I am still learning what to do and what not to do, so if you feel that this wiki should be deleted, then by all means, go ahead. --Stuart D. 05:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Stuart. We have to be able to provide reliable sources to back the information up. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Andrew Levine 06:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Andrew, I will try and do the right thing by Wikipedia in the future. --Stuart D. 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete for lack of sources and verifiability; Google search for ("marks up" + game) and ("markers up" + game) both yielded no relevant results. --MCB 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB. Had a look at some playground games site and couldn't find this one. I can and will happily change that vote if someone can come up with a good link. I think half the problem here is that a lot of these playground games have different names - it might be called something else and be abundantly listed on the web under that name. Welcome to WP Stuart, don't let these things put you off. QuagmireDog 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain/comment; IMO, I think something like this can lack Internet hits. I'm willing to keep this if references and the right links are found. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagdad Theater and Pub[edit]

Non notable place/hangout in Portland OR, < 70 unique google hits. Theres a wikitravel article on it; it's just too nn for us. · XP · 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --MCB 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable theater. Equendil Talk 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Fa Chorus[edit]

Non-notable per WP:ORG and does meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:V criterias. No Google results [7] excluding those from Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Atputhasingam[edit]

Contested PROD Yank sox 01:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete being CSD A7; the original author's username suggests that they are the subject of the article, making it a vanity article; and additionally, the article offers no verification of the claims made in the article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a boderline speedy and it does assert some importance, and it's much safer to gauge community consensus. Yank sox 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... "has won the Editor's Choice Award" from where? An obscure canadian (sic) magazine? Vanity, non-noteable. Author spent one day creating/modifying it (a month ago), and hasn't been heard from since. --141.156.232.179 11:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly obvious vanity. Resolute 21:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the article blanked this AfD. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, no references, not notable.Vic sinclair 08:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japani NORWAY[edit]

Non-notable Norwegian anime forum. Article itself reads like a guide to the website. Doesn't meet WP:WEB notability requirements, and the {{importance}} tag has been on the article since April with very little done to rectify the issue. A VfD on an earlier version of the article ended in no consensus. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoChaosX. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article misses wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of web content. There are more in that category like this. --Kunzite 02:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Also, the keep votes in the old VfD were WP:ILIKEIT style comments. ColourBurst 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Psc6 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an English vanity article about a Norwegian site seems entirely pointless; there's not even a page for it at no:Japani NORWAY and it belongs there if anywhere. Shiroi Hane 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostorthobics[edit]

Seems to be a neologism made by some scam artist. A Google search turns up the same information on many different websites, without ever describing what it is.--Nonpareility 01:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articke is remarkably short and gives an urbandictionary.com-style blurb about what it is. Delete. --Dennisthe2 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable; not clear exactly what it is from any sources, none of which are reliable in any case. --MCB 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is simple nonsense, or alternatively it describes a therapy which is.--Anthony.bradbury 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 23:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrstal Point[edit]

Shopping mall. No sign of other notability. The Google search comes up empty if you remove the wikipedia related links. [8] It definitely seems to exist but there's no sign of any notability outside its existence as a business and there's no hope to ever build the article from reliable third party sources. Pascal.Tesson 01:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Kyrstal Point" is apparently a misspelling for "Krystal Point", which is in fact a commercial district in Penang, Malaysia [9], but there appears to be nothing notable or distinctive about it, nor are there any sources available regarding the shopping center mentioned in the article. --MCB 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G4. Yank sox 04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWL Hardcore Championship[edit]

Article previously deleted in CSD. Completely non-notable league/title. CSD and prod removed by author Wildthing61476 02:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, also the author can not remove CSD tags. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD G4: old afd debate. Tagged as such. MER-C 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete being previously deleted as well as most of the content being plagiarized from WWE Hardcore Championship, like the old article. Possibly request a salting of the namespace, too. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prolen[edit]

Created by product spammer (see Fertrejo2 (talk · contribs)'s edit on September 9) with no sources and POV text. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Leuko 02:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant spam. MER-C 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 12:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No first game to redirect to, as far as I can tell. No verifiable sources at this time. Luna Santin 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hordes: No Escape[edit]

Not notable. Google only returns one reference to it in passing, one translation, and a bunch of wiki mirrors. Nonpareility 02:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. According to the entry, it's a "code title for a game currently in development". No source, nothing, it isn't possible to build an article from that that wouldn't reek of original research. Equendil Talk 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article of their first game, crystal-ball spamcruftvertisement tomfoolery Mystic Meg would be proud of. QuagmireDog 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WPINACB. BlueValour 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple-O[edit]

Indie musician, hesitated to prod. Basically the content seems unverifiable. Google search for "Apple-O" is useless but "Apple-O" with any of the claimed album titles turns up empty. I'm not denying he exists but he's too obscure an artist to have reliable sources to build on. Pascal.Tesson 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability, lack of citations. If we allow this entry we will have to allow every musician with a 4-track or digital recorder. Johnbrownsbody 02:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. --Masamage 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. This seems to be the only link Here is the description of the Applechords album: "Applechords. Songs recorded in a bedroom (most seconds after they were written). Instrumentals in many moods. Words about friends, cats, oxygen..." RickReinckens 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Smith Of Winding River, Mississippi[edit]

Speedy Delete If you see the history, obvious vandalism and biographical --DanielES15 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this for speedy deletion. There's no need to run this through AfD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 08:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopoetry[edit]

Non-notable neologism. A google search turns up an CD called "Jazz-Funk-Hip-HoPoetry" and a handful of references of people talking about "hip hopoetry" Nonpareility 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2180 ghits. MER-C 02:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and forget it. BlueValour 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gayer[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable website. No Alexa traffic rank: [10]. MER-C 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; site does not even appear to exist: www.topgayer.com displays a page that says "Coming soon", with a link to "visit the original site", which leads to a page on the site queernetwork.co.uk. Can't possibly meet WP:WEB. --MCB 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete; The website is not the main part of the article. The article is supposed to stress the lobbying aspect of the group which has been successful in changing the policies and marketing of companies in UK. I have ammended the article to stress this. If the website itself can't meet WP:WEB then the link can be taken off, but this is only there to direct the reader who wishes to know more about the group. --Mattsibley 19:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in its current form, the article is mostly unreferenced. You claim that this group has received much attention from the mainstream press. It would considerably improve yoru case if you can provide citations for these mentions. I myself remember this group from the Top Gear episode where it was first mentioned (and someone joked that "Top Queer" would have been a better name), but (without doing a careful search) I can't seem to find the transcript at the moment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable --Bill.matthews 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi[edit]

Contested prod about a website that asserts its non-notability, e.g."Dec 2005: 578 active members". MER-C 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 500-odd members is seriously tiny. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of a site's popularity, portals are not encyclopdia-worthy IMHO. If the portal contributes to something significant in past or current history, or is a significant part of current popular culture, then it would be worthy of a page. As an example of a portal having its own article, 2channel has one because it is linked to pop culture, specifically responsible for the creation of Densha Otoko. I don't see any criteria around that says "as long as XXXX site has YYYY users, then it is okay to have its own page." If this Soompi article slides by, then EVERY portal - and there's millions of them - are allowed to create articles for themselves on Wikipedia. The outcome of this removal request will set a documented precedence for all future articles regarding portals. Groink 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to be a forum site rather than a portal site, but with 500 members it's clearly not notable. --MCB 06:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a portal. The link posted on the main article page incorrectly points to the forum. The main portal site is http://www.soompi.com/ . Groink 07:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Also, member count is very low, and according to the article, it's actually gone down. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that although the article right now is rubbish, that Soompi has an Alexa rank of 1,200 and that the statistics on big-boards indicates 60,000 members. I'm not voting to keep, because the article isn't any good and doesn't assert its notability, but this website is more popular than pretty muchevery single webcomic on Wikipedia. - Hahnch e n 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the article should be deleted, but revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.30.110.51 (talk • contribs) .
- Why? Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Football[edit]

Appears to be created by spammer Patstuart 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa ~ 180,000: [11]. MER-C 02:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be self-promotional spam. Leuko 02:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, Alexa rank, spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.--Hús ö nd 17:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Cooman[edit]

Not particularly notable, as far as I can tell. Has performed a few places. Article does not assert notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another of Musikfabrik's promotional sites, I think. (Statement 2 of the Jean-Thierry Boisseau discussion here, specifically says Musikfabrik was set up to do this.}}

Again vanity, delete. Musikfabrik cabal pushing over-obscure people to articles. No. Moreschi 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, perhaps keep. I don't really know. "Carson Cooman composer" (to distinguish him from the other carson coomans of this world) has 9,000 google hits, but then "Adam Cuerden" (real name) has 22,000. Tricky. Moreschi 11:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- A search for "Carson Cooman" in quotes, however, gives a mere 882 hits. "Carson P. Cooman" (again in quotes), 971 more, and "Cooman, Carson", 397. There's likely to be significant overlap. Meanwhile, the I-don't-think-I'm-notable "Adam Cuerden" (in quotes) gives 12,000. Delete, IMO. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Moreschi 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case for deletion --Folantin 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He sounds a talented man with many achievements; I have tried to be convinced, but the article doesn't establish it as my opinion that he is notable per WP:MUSIC. The article says he has composed 600 works - a reference to a review of one of them by a reviewer in a national journal independently opining that it is a notable composition would convince me. I notice that one of the hundreds of works the article says he has premiered is by Peter Maxwell Davies, although the piece was not written for him; however, although this appears to be his most notable first performance, it does not of itself convince me, either; I was somewhat surprised that it is not mentioned in the article. His activities as journal editor, music reviewer, and collaborator with authors would be good article content if he were otherwise notable. Notable teachers (and Bernard Rands and Gillian Weir certainly are notable) do not confer notability on the pupil. The references cited are his own website and Musikfabrik, neither qualifies as independent. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment - List of recordings [12] - Recordings on MMC, Zimbel, ABC (Austrailian Broadcasing company), Jade, ERM Media, and others (an all orchestral music CD will be coming on NAXOS in about six months...).

Article about his work in promoting new music : [13]

Off of [14] -

Programming Notes: Jennifer Higdon and Carson P. Cooman will both be guests on upcoming editions of Classical Discoveries hosted by Marvin Rosen.

Higdon will appear tomorrow morning, August 2 from 8:30 until 11 (eastern time) and the young Carson P. Cooman (who has already composed over 650 works) will appear on Wednesday morning, August 9 also from 8:30 until 11--if there is a Wednesday morning, August 9 from 8:30 until 11.

Classical Discoveries airs every Wednesday morning from 6:00 until 11 on WPRB (103.3 FM or on line at http://www.wprb.com) from Princeton, NJ.

There's more where that came from, if this isn't enough...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm biased. but I'm going to vote anyway. Obvious Keep. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 00:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, unreferenced. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal School of Buffalo[edit]

Seems to be self-promotional spam, with no assertion of the notability of the school. Leuko 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a way to open up collaboration for our teachers, staff, and particularly students. Intended to make an historical record of sorts as well. I got the idea from a book published by Will Richardson from Webbloged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amosstarz (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom, self-promotion and no claims to notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP is WP:NOT a social networking tool (see 1.6 of WP:NOT). Articles about whatever the subject are better-off being written by someone who isn't directly involved with that subject. The kind of information required to establish notability is listed under WP:SCHOOL and could be of help to those editting this article. If notability can be established then I will happily change my vote, but the article as stands does not reflect the nature of Wikipedia. QuagmireDog 04:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should point out that WP:SCHOOL is not a Wikipedia policy, but an ongoing discussion as to how schools should define notability. That said, notability is not the only issue, WP:NOT is still in breech. QuagmireDog 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:SCHOOL. --MCB 06:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. JASpencer 09:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 15:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep if references can be added per jyolkowski Yuckfoo 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked around for some links on Google to see if I could find some references made to the school, but came up empty handed. The school seems very nice, nice website, which is why I've tried to find something, but all I can see is that the school is of course notable to its pupils and their families (more than notable), there's nothing out there justifying an article on WP. I'm wondering if Will Richardson from Webbloged was referring to a seperate wiki or mentioned the WP without discussing the requirements of notability etc? I would advise the staff of the school who are involved in this to seek information on setting up their own wiki, and hope this hasn't put them off Wikipedia (it can be great practice for your students to edit articles on all the subjects here). The Village Pump on the main page is also somewhere to turn to for help if needed. If someone else more experienced could have a quick look to see if they can find some notability citations I'd be greatful. QuagmireDog 04:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The school sounds interesting, but I cannot find any solid references either. Delete until verifiable sources become available on this school. Silensor 20:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer[edit]

non-notable Wikipedian hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD here.--Konstable 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the result of the recent AfD was keep I am not convinced of notability and I think it had a great deal of bias towards Simon just because he is a prominent Wikipedian.--Konstable 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is somewhat of a nuisance VfD given that the previous one was only about 4 months ago and nothing has changed much, see previous VfD for reasons why it should be kept. -- Stbalbach 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the only Wikipedian who automatically deserves an article. CJCurrie 04:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly except for some Wales guy, whoever he is. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Editing Wikipedia a lot does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Adam Bishop 04:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. But that is not why M. Pulsifer has an article. Xe has an article because, as a consequence of xyr editing Wikipedia a lot, journalists went out and interviewed and researched xem. In other words, xe is demonstrably notable because xe was noted. That the case for very few Wikipedians. Uncle G 18:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who is Xe? What does Xyrael have to do with this? —Centrx→talk • 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your question is a non-sequitur that does not appear to be related to what I wrote above. Uncle G 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hope this helps. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion will never ever end. He has garnered a decent amount of coverage for his editing[15], I think he need to realize just because it involves Wikipedia, doesn't mean we should immedially remove it in fear of self reference or appearing to be hypocritical (that is a much different, and interesting debate). Honestly, he has been covered by sources which seem about reliable enough to just cover WP:BIO. Yank sox 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or you know, send to the Canadian-language wikipedia, unless it's being deleted like the Czech one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Czech Wikipedia is not being deleted. Nor has any such deletion ever been proposed as far as I am aware. Uncle G 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Mister Manticore is referring to this.--Hús ö nd 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the deletion discussion for an encyclopaedia article, not a deletion discussion for the Czech Wikipedia. I already linked to where the deletion discussions for Wikipedias are in fact to be found. Uncle G 18:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yanksox. GreenJoe 04:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep I don't think editing Wikipedia makes you even mildly notable, but he has been mentioned in several magazines/websites. I don't think he deserves an article though. TJ Spyke 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, flash-in-the-pan media coverage does not indicate any sort of long term significance. In a year or two, no one will care (no offense to Simon).--SB | T 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean, we can say that about nearly 2 to 3 fifths of all the subjects that have a Wikipedia entry. It's really difficult to gauge how big or noticed something will be further down the line. Yanksox 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. There was media coverage a few months ago, and that's it. It stopped. If we covered everything that got a smattering of newspaper articles, we'd have thousands of articles on moose who wandered into parks and criminals who forget to take the money when holding up convience stores.--SB | T 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sean, alot of things gain coverage and then quickly fade away from the public eye. Just because people's attention spans suddenly put that event or person on the backburner does not mean that we just toss aside the subject as well because that's what the fashion tells us to do so. Honestly, some people or things are highly talked about and then almost fade away before our own eyes. You would have a hardtime deleting articles about anything that was part of non-stop talk and now suddenly noone cares about it. That would be utterly ridiculous. Yank sox 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Media coverage of Simon P has been ongoing since 2004 I believe (perhaps even earlier). Search on google news or other archives. -- Stbalbach 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how any of this is relevant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Adam Bishop 14:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        A lot of articles on Wikipedia are about people whose only notability is that they were in the press. John Mark Karr for example. He made a false confession, but so have many other people. He committed some minor crimes, but so have a lot of other people. The only reason he has a Wikipedia article is there was a lot of press attention around him. -- Stbalbach 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever, since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come." (Ecclesiastes 2:16) I'm not sure what point I'm making with that, but the conversation made me think of it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I'm partial to Boethius "One thing is fixed, by eternal law arranged; Nothing which comes to be remains unchanged." and "Does bare acquaintance with illustrious names alone, Impart real knowledge of the dead?" -- No doubt that in 2 or 3 years if nothing has changed this article will be more easily VfD'd. -- Stbalbach 20:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normaly a heavy editor would not be notable enough to warrant their won article but in this case, with the media coverage and the role he played in brining attention from the general population to wikipedia makes this case diffrent. NeoFreak 07:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Punkmorten 08:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We must be very, very, very careful about articlespace pages for wikipedia editors: it's an extremely slippery slope indeed. However, SimonP is active enough that he's actually gotten some attention in the press for it, so at least the article is notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think there is confusion between notability as a prolific Wikipedia editor, and notable as someone who has received a lot of public attention. Of course, no one is notable for being a Wikipedia editor - in that case, we should all have our own article. The article is notable because of the amount of public attention paid to Simon P - this attention is notable and unique among Wikipedia editors. He has become the public face, the human interest story of the project. As far as I know there is no other editor so often mentioned in the press. -- Stbalbach 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and referenced Wikipedian.--Hús ö nd 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NeoFreak - Jord 18:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SB JeffBurdges 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While, with all respect to SimonP, it may seem suspect that his notability comes from editing this very wikipedia, the article has been sourced to reliable sources. I'm afraid it squeaks by.-- danntm ^T _C 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I mean no harm or offense to Simon, but his only claim to fame (or more accurately, notability) is being the subject of a trivial slow-news-day article (because Wikipedia is a hot topic). Other than that, there's really no claim to fame. Now, if a town erected a building or a statue of him, or got really pissed off at him, maybe then there could be a claim to notability. But until then... this is MessedRocker. 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and you know why? Try this simple test: replace the word Wikipedia and its variants with widget. In other words, don't let your opinions on the endeavor itself shade your opinion--just go by the degree of media attention as a qualifier. Does it meet notability? In my book, it does. I understand the desire to be cautious of Wikipedians achieving notability AS Wikipedians, but it can happen. And it has. P L E A T H E R _talk 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO, keep per Yanksox and others. Agent 86 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite seeming not notable, he certainly seems to meet WP:BIO and has received significant national media attention. -- Chabuk 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the few very notable wikipedia editors. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very notable Wikipedian with many press articles written about him. --Jannex 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notable press coverage. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: 'nuff said (per above). Ombudsman 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- media reports take this one over the line for inclusion. - Longhair\^talk 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Repeating for the benefit of those who are confusing prominence within the Wikipedia community for notability that he is notable for coverage by established media sources, not for being a Wikipedia editor. He could collect moss and, if Globe & Mail and MacLean's wrote profiles about him doing that, he would still fall across the line into notability. - BT 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable and meets WP:BIO, what more do you want. RFerreira 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon in the news[edit]

Simon's mention in the press, the article doesn't cover it all:

"Wikipedia Wonderboy", University of Toronto Magazine, 2006.
"Meet Mr. Know-it-all: Simon Pulsifer", Maclean's, August 15 2006.
"Prolific Canadian is king of Wikipedia", Globe and Mail, August 4 2006.
- Chicago Sun-Times, August 13 2006 (re-run of Globe story since its now sub-only).
"Academics question Wikipedia’s credibility", The Ithacan, April 2006.
"Inside the world of Wikipedians, there's drama, politics and love", USA Today (Gannet News Service), March 2006

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATPDevelopment[edit]

Prodded and Prod2'ed. Deprodded by anon. Company fails WP:CORP Roninbk _{t c #} 03:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable group or company. Even the article says they've only released "several minigames". Wmahan . 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:CORP and a lack of sources, reliable or otherwise.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google "ATP Development" BYOND. It returns seven unique pages (plus the Wikipedia page). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Nao Books[edit]

Vanity article that does not conform to any Wiki standards. Article is supposedly about a book publishing company, but is only briefly mentioned in the opening. The rest of the article reads like a resume for the company's founder. No edits other than creation by presumably the company's founder, and that is the only edit in their history. Google search of the title in quotes returns 25 hits, so company lacks notability. Crockspot 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) additional comment - Just thought I would mention that I found this article through the "Random article" link, and have no special interest in the article, company, or its founder. Crockspot 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment addressed Crockspot criticisms; what number of google hits constitutes notability? (posted by User:Ma Nao, formatted by Crockspot 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There is no magic number, and google hits are only one way to guage notability. But twenty-five is a very small number of hits, and most of those hits are from the company website. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, and Wikipedia:Cruft. Crockspot 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence to show WP:ORG or WP:V. ColourBurst 05:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --MCB 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 07:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Equendil Talk 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NULL programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the idea of this language sounds rather interesting. JIP | Talk 12:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did "being interesting" allow use to ignore WP:V? (Generally "interesting" things will be written enough about to become WP:V, but not in this case). —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dozens of such languages could be invented. This article doesn't present interesting information except the claim of "zero-dimensionality" (what's that?) and doesn't provide valuable insight into numerics or computer science and is not even funny.

[Encoding some information into a large integer which is operated on later was at least once presented as a compression technique in computer science (I did my thesis about encoding of 3D objects in such a way (my result: no advantages compared to the classical data structures)).] Pavel Vozenilek 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only interesting thing about NULL is that it works like a canonical way to enumerate differently working programs in a basic, minimal Turing-complete language. If Wikipedia already has an article about that, then I might change my vote to "delete". JIP | Talk 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The merit of this esoteric language aside, which shouldn't be a criteria for inclusion, this "programming language" is completely non notable. Compare with Brainfuck for an esoteric 'joke' language that *is* notable. Equendil Talk 19:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a programming language - if someone can be bothered to write it, and someone can also be bothered to create an article for it, in my eyes it's worth keeping. doktorrob™ 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth keeping at the EsoLang Wiki where they have more room for those hunderds of languages and are not bothered by WP:V. —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this should probably be merged to Gödel numbering, as this is the first use I've seen to break down into executable components. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No! Please don't add useless trivia/cruft to genuinly encyclopedic articles. —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numberix[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this programming language is notable. JIP | Talk 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some esoteric languages such as Brainfuck are notable alright, but second or third generation spawns of those languages generally are not. Equendil Talk 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evening Prayer (Anglican), given that this article already contains a "Common Worship" section. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Prayer (Common Worship)[edit]

We need to fold this into Evening Prayer (Book of Common Prayer) and add information about non-CofE liturgies to create one Evening Prayer (Anglican) article. We can't have articles for every version of Evensong that there is. Furthermore, there is no substantive information on the rite in this article. I propose that we delete this, put any info in the other article that is not already there, and expand the newly merged article. Carolynparrishfan 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article could well just be one paragraph in that article.Rockhopper10r 04:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect; otherwise delete. --MCB 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect In principle there is no problem with having "articles for every version of Evensong that there is". However the assertion of importance within the article "It represents a move back towards the traditional Liturgy of the Hours in the liturgy of the Church of England" is too weak. Why has no merge been attempted on the article? JASpencer 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's exactly what I've attempted, but now we've this "spare" article. And I don't know what to do with it other than delete it and re-create it as a redirect.

Delete I think the main article ought to be Evening Prayer, and that it should "see also" to vespers for the Roman Catholic equivalent. (Likewise, vespers should point back to Evening Prayer instead of to Evensong, which at present is a disambig for the two CofE books and a Unitarian Universalist almost unrelated program.) The Book of Common Prayer qualifier appears to be unnecessary. There's almost no substance to the article proposed for deletion, and there's no point to a redirect since I can't imagine that anyone would ever look for it that way anyway. On the other hand, the main article definitely needs a lot of work incorporating the 1979 American book, if not Common Worship. Mangoe 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have attempted to render this article utterly superfluous by incorporating more material on CW Evensong into the other article than there is in this one. Carolynparrishfan 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carolynparrishfan has duplicated the interesting material at Evening Prayer (Anglican). Some of the remarks could also be added to Common Worship. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkyScan-1078[edit]

Non-notable product. Borderline advertising. Most of the text is taken word for word from here -Nv8200p talk 03:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio. ColourBurst 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuna[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Equendil Talk 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Shiel[edit]

A non-notable self-proclaimed activist whose major achievements are once running a marathon and launching a failed law suit in Tucson, Arizona. Harr o5 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn bio. Borderline speedy (CSD:A7). I guess the assertion of notability is being a board member of a spin-off of Cult Awareness Network but that's a stretch. --MCB 06:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --Hús ö nd 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ook! programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has two previous AfDs, both of which may be found through this link. Xoloz 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one, like a number of the other "esoteric programming languages", was created as a joke, not as a practical programming language, and hasn't gained any real following (unlike, for example, Intercal and Brainfuck). Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Zetawoof. JIP | Talk 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a software engineer and Terry Pratchett fan, this brings a smile to my face, and this is not the first time I read about the "Ook! programming language", but as a Wikipedian, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion. Equendil Talk 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does this even exist?Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it exists.DanielCristofani 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. —Ruud 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ook! Equendil Talk 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that a 'delete' "ook", or a 'keep' "ook"? Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ook! Oook! Equendil Talk 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be worth reading the ~~transwiki~~interwiki list before jumping in and saying 'delete'; it was doing quite well on its previous AfD (linked above), and it has survived AfDs on other Wikipedias before. On the other hand, there isn't really much useful information here. I was going to vote !'neutral' but then checked Google and saw tens of thousands of hits (about 70000 counting Wikipedia mirrors, about 60000 with my efforts to exclude them), which is quite a lot for an esoteric programming language. --ais523 10:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How on earth did you end up with tens of thousand hits ? Equendil Talk 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Ook%21+%22programming+language%22+-wikipedia+-encyclopedia&btnG=Search is about 62300 hits for me. --ais523 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    Apparently, "ook" is a dutch word. Equendil Talk 15:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Check past the first page of results; over 80% of the results are real (as opposed to being false positives). --ais523 15:58, 27 September 2006 (U T C)
        Not anywhere close to 80% from what I can tell, but anyway, the point is, it's more or less impossible to tell how many Google hits are actually relevant here, especially seeing as the top hits displayed (up to 1000) by Google are the "best match" Google can find. Equendil Talk 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I counted pages about esoteric progamming languages that mentioned Ook! as true positives, even if they were about a different language; the test was an attempt to gauge the size of Ook!'s following. --ais523 17:12, 27 September 2006 (U T C)
        Well, compare a search on "brainfuck programming language" (exact sentence)[16], and "ook! programming language" [17]. Brainfuck is the language from which "ook!" is derived. Quite a contrast. Equendil Talk 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I wouldn't agree with grouping "programming language" with ook! in the search; that's going to produce far too many false negatives, which are much harder to spot than false positives. --ais523 14:18, 28 September 2006 (U T C)
Weak Keep. Maybe a useless programming language but notable nonetheless. Asterion^talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Figure It Out Panelists[edit]

nn list for modestly (at best) notable cable game show Giant onehead 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unneeded listcruft. MER-C 07:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Guyanakoolaid 07:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogonal programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no notability whichever way I look on it, no entertainment values as well. Mass AfDs are the best way to deal with this kind of articles. Pavel Vozenilek 14:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I thought... —Ruud 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Equendil Talk 20:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Ettish[edit]

Someone put this up as a speedy. It's not a speedy candidate, but it's still probably worth deleting. Fred Ettish is a name known to fans of Ultimate Fighting Championship. In one of the early matches in the early days of UFC, the UFC was known to take a lot of amateurs. One of them was Fred Ettish, a karate instructor who displayed more bravado than martial arts prowess, and lost his one and only fight in a particularly lame way. Shortly thereafter, a mockery site sprang up, which is still in existence. Does this make Fred Ettish notable enough for a bio? Dunno. I leave it up to you guys. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks to nominator for the background. A Google search seems to indicate this guy has/had some sort of facetious fan base, but I don't think that passes WP:BIO. --MCB 06:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a noteable fighter. In fact, he is mostly known by old time fans who enjoy mocking him! Aika 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the user who lodged the speedy template. If the admin didn't happen to have specific knowledge of who this guy was, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the article was in terrible shape. I appreciate the effort made to explain who the guy is because it's actually a somewhat interesting story. He's not notable, though. Erechtheus 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'

He is very noteable, because he took the fight in 10 minutes, he is maybe not noteable to the people who dont follow Mixed Martial Arts but he is to those who do. And Wikipedia is about giving information on everything, including the master Fred Ettish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.214.204.248 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 final two !votes are pretty strong. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vic DiCara[edit]

Found while cleaning out CAT:CSD. I originally deleted it as lacking content/context, consisting mainly of an external link, and not asserting notablity, but then I saw that it had been created back in 2004, so I decided to send it though here instead. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 935 ghits. nn. MER-C 07:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's really bad, but considering he's played in 2 notable bands I think he should have a page. AmitDeshwar 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some references which comment on his apparent influence on hardcore punk during the 90's and I added them to the article. Agne 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rooms on Finders Keepers[edit]

Very odd game show fancruft for a fairly short-lived cable game show, really doesn't need it's own article. Giant onehead 04:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the game show article. FrozenPurpleCube 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft and non notable on top of that. Equendil Talk 19:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Connection between items on the list is not sufficiently notable. -Kubigula (ave) 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. --kingboyk 16:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Lakefront Soccer Club[edit]

Non-notable children's soccer club with no external sources. 66 google hits. No mention in any third party media that I could find. Most of the text is directly copied from the website. —Nate Scheffey 04:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or copyvio flag per nom. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacroix Forest LLP/s.r.l.[edit]

Contested PROD. Yank sox 04:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet criteria in WP:CORP, and I can't find any reliable sources to verify it, nor any media mentions. --Wafulz 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy. MER-C 07:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable company/spam-vertisement MidgleyDJ 09:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 08:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jorts[edit]

Neologism -Nv8200p talk 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article cites no sources, fails WP:NEO. Wmahan . 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - dictdef. MER-C 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism? Not at all. Possible of being more than a definition? Not by my reckoning. Transwiki to wiktionary if they don't already have it. GassyGuy 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, I can't see how it's not a neologism. Equendil Talk 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Beauty X[edit]

Hoax ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let it burn in hoax hell. Yank sox 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; mildly clever hoax. Do we still do BJAODN? --MCB 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this weren't a hoax (which, of course, it is) it should still be deleted, as the film's release date is 2008. Without some other claim to notability, this would be crystal balling. --IslaySolomon 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, not even a convincing hoax. Next time you make a poster, don't use MS Paint, and it's spelled Mena Suvari. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HAHAHA, Best! Hoax! Ever!... But seriously, delete this. — Joshua Johaneman 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a hoax. Pity though, that's pretty funny. NeoFreak 05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this garbage, total rubbish. RFerreira 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As a new information to the film crazy youth this article has it's own relevance. I used to write about western films in our Malayalam language.Often I used to refer Wikipedia. This information seems to be worthy .Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 17:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So, um, care to explain why this article should be allowed to violate WP:V, which is a policy? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like a hoax or prediction. Keep oncethere's some credible verification. --DjSamwise 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, hoax article created by an indefintely blocked user with previous history of vandalism. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batesville, Louisiana[edit]

This town doesn't seem to actually exist. It should be pointed out that there is, in fact, a Batesville, Mississippi around 300 miles north of New Orleans (but not on any coast, obviously); 300 miles east of New Orleans happens to be in Florida. Kirill Lokshin 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesnt exist, how do I live in Batesville, (personal attack removed)? --Ramirez Martinez Gomez 2250 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's for you to prove to us. WP:V makes it clear that the burden of evidence is with you, the editor that added the content. -- Shadowlynk 06:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Doesn't exist according to Google; in fact, using Google Earth, I get sent to the middle of Arkansas. Ryūlóng 06:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since I can't find any evidence of this place existing, either. If somebody does find something, let us know pronto. Luna Santin 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:HOAX, none of my searching has turned up anything either. -- Shadowlynk 06:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per obviousness of decision and speedy so to prevent Google and mirrors from picking up on this hoax (as I've done with earlier "Fake town" articles, which are popular for some unknown reason). --W.marsh 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax per everyone else. I tagged the article as a hoax just after creation. Michael Greiner 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthstation One[edit]

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB; seems to be about a non-notable commercial site. Incidentally some of the text is the same as the OTRCAT article about a competing site, which I've also nominated for deletion. Wmahan . 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The other article was listed for deletion separately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OTRCAT. Sorry if that was unclear. Wmahan . 14:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - they don't provide assertions of notability. MER-C 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Nigel ^(Talk) 16:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayMania E-Mail Themes[edit]

This does not seem important enough to have it's own article, nor is the subject matter encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I suggest that anything relevant be merged into PlayMania. Khatru2 06:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article informs people of what email theme was done on each episode. If a viewer goes "Wait, what theme was done on so and so day", they can refer to this page. I vote to keep this page. — JT (TRAiNER4) [T·C·E] 11:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: TRAiNER4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment. This discussion is about if having this list is notable to WP, not if hypothetically someone might actually have a query as to what a theme is that day (and in all honesty, I don't know who would). That's just totally stupid reasoning. Giant onehead 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, Merge some content Fancruft that could be described just as well in a paragraph within the main article. Nate 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell are you going to get all 39 E-Mail themes into 1 paragraph without the use of a table? — JT (TRAiNER4) [T·C·E] 12:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mention a few of the themes in passing, not all of them. They can be generalized into broader themes about family, friends, the show, contests, and hosts. Nate 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was originally part of the PlayMania page and no one had a problem with it, but the length become too long for the page so it was moved to its own in order to keep everyone happy. I feel that it should stay on its own for the time being, but if it continues to get longer or if it its "unimportance" continues to grow (which it shouldn't because PlayMania itself is growing), then we'll talk. If television programs can have episode guides on Wikipedia, PM can just as well have a guide for themes. — Chad "1m" Mosher ^EmailTalk _Cont. 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: I am the creator and co-main up-keeper of both this and the PlayMania articles. — Chad "1m" Mosher ^EmailTalk _Cont. 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this to fancruftian hell. — Joshua Johaneman 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason why? — JT (TRAiNER4) [T·C·E] 20:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Guyanakoolaid 09:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a good resource and a compliment to the PlayMania article. Mariah10Carey88 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above user has only 16 edits under user name. Giant onehead 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Again, we are talking about a late night show on a fairly minor cable network. This portion of the show is not even very notable within the context of the show. It has potential to be a gigantic page and it is just unnotable cruft in the context of WP. As I had suggested to Chad and Trainer (who really should butt out of the discussion some), why not just create your own webpage and include the table and work on it from there. This just isn't important and should be removed soon. Fancruft at its very worst to a low-rated late night cable show. Giant onehead 00:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD equitette states "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." By this, I believe that Chad and Trainer should state this, as they both have stronger than usual interests in the show and one of them created the article, and the respective talk pages should say even more. That should be mentioned to make a clear decision. Giant onehead 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this list was started in the Playmania article when there was a sense that it might be a limited term publicity stunt. That clearly is not the case given the expansion to six nights a week and the presence of at least one competing show on another network. We don't keep track of a list of Letterman top 10 List themes here, so we shouldn't keep track of a list of Playmania email themes. It's an excellent idea for a part of a fan page, but that's not what Wikipedia is. Erechtheus 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am having suspisions that Trainer4 has a single-purpose account, which I have tagged, and said user keeps removing the notice because they do not agree with it. I have restored the tag (again, it's not confirmed, it's suspected, if you don't think you are, you should be alright) and it should be kept until the debate closes (and I'm a tad confused to why it has not). Giant onehead 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will undelete and userfy upon request, if desired. Luna Santin 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Ayalon[edit]

This author is not notable. None of his books have been published. There are no citations in the article, and I could not find any references to his works on the Internet. I spoke with a self-described expert in the genre of Israeli Alternate History and he never heard of this man. nadav 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification His books may have been self-published, but I was unable to find any of them in the authoritative MALMAD catalog. nadav 07:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nadav1, you didn't quite do this right. First you placed a Template:Unsourced on the article (fair enough) but with a misleading edit summary, {A} then you gave the article creator a warning (right thing), but using a Template:Nn-warn? {B} The article is *not* a candidate for speedy deletion, or any kind of deletion at that point.

The speedy deletion warning was a mistake. I was following the instructions on WP:BIO at the bottom, which I thought meant only that it could be nominated for speedy. The edit summary is accurate, I think. This is my first deletion nomination, so I'm learning. nadav 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on Vf..AfD trends, but is moving pet subjects to user space still fashionable? If google tests are still in, I'll save y'all the bother of parrotting and say, shock horror, there's not much. Clearly google is about as 'reliable' on fringe subjects as self described experts... or wikipedia. --zippedmartin 07:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but national catalogs of books (both the Israeli and Australian) are reliable. If an author's books are not in any library, he's not much of an author. Moreover, the article seems to be entirely based on personal interviews with Ayalon. And since there is not a single mention of Ayalon anywhere on the internet, I doubt any verifiable information on him can be found. nadav 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a google search for moshe ayalon. It weeds out most references to a prominent sports medicine scientist and misprints referring to Moshe Ya'alon, the former chief of staff. This is a Hebrew Google search. All the results refer to the sports scientist. nadav 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article references no sources. We expect claims of notability to be sourced to independent reliable sources. With no sources, no claims of notability are sourced that way. The above discussion about the lack of evidence of the book in any library in the countries where published is further indication, but not as important as the lack of sourcing. GRBerry 21:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, though some of the !votes mention a merging. Was this article merged anywhere? I don't see much evidence of merging (nothing in Wiktionary, epispiral merely contains the formula in another form), and the original article was a mere dicdef. Therefore, I think it's safe to delete this. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ear curve[edit]

Dictionary definition. Dismas|^(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - I'm sure this can be expanded so it is not a one-line dictdef into something like Rose curve. MER-C 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt one can say much about this on its own, ~~so Merge into Rose curve~~. Michael Kinyon 11:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ (but don't bother merging) to Epispiral per David Eppstein and Salix alba below. (I don't agree about "rose curve" versus "rhodonea curve", but that's a different discussion.) Michael Kinyon 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I meant about merging: the information that this curve is inverse to the rose should be included in Epispiral; it isn't there now. But I agree with Lambiam that a redirect isn't appropriate because there seem to be no references to the curve by this name outside WP. —David Eppstein 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – neologism. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Epispiral. I couldn't find references to this curve under this name in several indexes of famous curves [18] [19] [20] [21]. For that matter, the rose curve to which it refers is much more commonly called the rhodonea curve. But this is a reasonably well known curve, under a different name, the epi spiral: e.g., see [22] [23] or other results of a Google search on that name. —David Eppstein 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that the information has been merged. —David Eppstein 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~redirect~~ to Epispiral. Could not find any references to the curve under this name. --Salix alba (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone introduces an article with, say, title Hairy number and text "A hairy number is an integer that is divisible by another integer", it should not be deleted but be redirected to Composite number, even though no-one except the creator uses this term for this kind of number? --Lambiam ^Talk 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - convinced by Lambiam. --Salix alba (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, excellent point. Having searched pretty hard for the term myself, I've changed my mind again. Delete! Michael Kinyon 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wiktionary. Some P. E rson 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete; do not merge, do not transwiki to Wiktionary; the statement about its inverse is now in epispiral. Septentrionalis 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect under the theory that somewhere, buried under all the many links to "ear curve" that refer to the fleshy appendage's shape, there may be somebody talking about a "reverse rose curve" or something vaguely related to Epispiral. If the clueless author of that page ever searches WP, let him be redirected. Meanwhile, I can't imagine any other topic that might belong under this title. Redirects are cheap and do not endorse the alternate/mistaken/misspelt term. John Reid 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think that "somewhere" exists. Googling for ear-curve and rose-curve returns no non-WP hits; same in Google scholar. —David Eppstein 03:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And in the meantime there are several other legitimate uses for the term, such as for biometric profiles and for adjusting auditory aids, so if someone should search for this term they are almost surely looking for soemthing else. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPC All Church Retreat[edit]

Wikipedia is not an event advertisement site, no matter how worthy the event might be. Delete. (I would have written speedy, but can't think of a speedy deletion criterion.) --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as "an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." (CSD A7). --IslaySolomon 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this is not an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, meets guidelines --- Deville (Talk) 17:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Cummz[edit]

Not notable, doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO or WP:BIO guidelines. CJ 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she meets criteria #8 for WP:PORN BIO: "Performer has been in 100 or more movies". According to IAFD, she has been 107 movies, which is just more than what's needed. Tabercil 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tabercil above. Equendil Talk 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. AmitDeshwar 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. AmitDeshwar 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.58.130 (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Luna Santin 08:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primortals[edit]

Unsure as to notability, and very short article, however uneasy to use {{nocontext}} if article has potential. haz (talk) e 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, the notability is that it was an 15-issue comic book series by someone who is himself notable. Two someones if we work Isaac Asimov into it, since Nimoy credited discussions with him as helping develop the story. I wouldn't do more than one article for the whole series, but since it did make some news at the time, I'd keep it. FrozenPurpleCube 13:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the article is only a few days old. A little time for folks to expand it would be appreciated. FrozenPurpleCube 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Leonard Nimoy Notability doesn't "leak over". Star Trek is notable on its own (!), not this as far as I can tell. There's an entry about Nimoy and that's the perfect place to write succinctly about his work beyond acting in Star Trek. Equendil Talk 19:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy about that, for a few reasons. One, the Nimoy article is already plenty big. Two, the discussion of the story itself wouldn't belong there anyway, and three, there are some questions as to Nimoy's involvement in the series. FrozenPurpleCube 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on, I know fiction notability is hotly contested, but two of the biggest names in science fiction collaborating plus SETI? Maybe not articles for each comic, but one for the whole series seems very reasonable and very notable to me. Guyanakoolaid 09:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject appears be a comic book series, a novel and a related CD-ROM, with some media coverage. See here for review of the CD-ROM, and here for the book. I think it's notable enough for a short article. -Kubigula (ave) 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both links are dead. Equendil Talk 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Same dumb mistake on both. Now fixed. -Kubigula (ave) 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Equendil Talk 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the article fails to note that Nimoy didn't write the book. He was credited as a "creator" and used to market the book, just like everything else they published. It's worth a mention on Nimoy's page, but the book in and of itself isn't all that significant. Watchsmart 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying: The publisher, Teknocomix paid celebrities a lot of money to "create" some "concepts" for comic books. They then passed the the book onto someone to write. They had "Issac Asimov's Ibots" and "Neil Gaiman's Mr. Hero," and even "Gene Roddenbury's Lost Universe," (though G.R. had died some years earlier). Nimoy's involvement with the book was quite limited. The book was sort of alright, though. Watchsmart 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like details that would be worth adding to the Tekno Comix article, and this one. I was tempted to do so, but lacked sources. If you've got some, it'd be appreciated. BTW, "A novelization was written by Steve Perry" has been part of the article for several days, and the Nimoy one for even longer. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the Primortals article. At the very least, we can take down the "expand" tag. I suppose, also, that we can Keep the article... Nimoy + 27 issues + book is probably more noteable than a lot of other things in Wikipedia. Perhaps the Tekno Comix article doesn't make stuff clear enough about the creation process. I will take a look. Watchsmart 10:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the two people who wrote the debut issue are prominent enough to have entries themselves. Watchsmart 10:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7) – Gurch 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (Rugby League Player, Parade College Raiders)[edit]

Contested Prod (I'd originally prodded it, in case anyone's curious) which was removed without comment by an anon. There's no assertion of notability here, for the simple reason that the player in question is only potentially going to have a bright career in the code. Sorry to clog up the works here, so if someone could perhaps slap a Speedy on it (my own attempt at db-bio'ing him was removed by the same anon with the same lack of reason), I'd be much obliged BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was already removed twice (it shouldn't have been added back after the first one), as was the prod (is it proper to add that after a speedy is removed, I wouldn't think so). Live with it. I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules. But 92.2 kg? Give me a break. Where'd that supposed precision come from; looks like something just made up to me. Gene Nygaard 09:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the second speedy tag after coming across the article in the newpages list. In retrospect, I should have checked the page history to see if it had been so tagged before, but I didn't. The prod was not (at least at the time I moved this to AfD) removed twice. I added it based on the fact that the speedy had been removed (twice, in the event) without any assertion of notability in fact added, so the original author or anyone had the full five days. When it was removed, I brought it here. What I meant by the phrase "to slap a Speedy on it" wasn't "to add a CSD tag to the article again", but rather "to speedily delete this article despite its appearance at AfD", something which frequently occurs for things which have only turned up here because of process. To say that I'm not "playing by the rules" is, to me, either an assumption of bad faith or something sailing remarkably close to that area. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - playing in a school side isn't an assertion of notability. I'll see if I can get that speedy tag to stick. MER-C 11:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TabletKiosk[edit]

Contested prod. Vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 10:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Utcursch. MER-C 11:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

105 North Tower (disambiguation)[edit]

disambig which links to no articles Ohwell32 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD G6. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalspace[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No assertion of notability. No evidence of coverage in non-trivial works. No evidence of winning awards. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Haakon 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 14:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling news world[edit]

This page is just being used as a reason for members of that forum to promote themselves and to bash other members. Check the history to confirm this. This page is hardly noteworthy. It is an internet forum. Yes, there are forums on Wikipedia that do have pages, but that is because they are actually important forums in rwlation to the show they represent. Wrestlingnewsworld is merely one of a hundred wrestling forums that are equally as big. If Wrestling News World gets a page, why not the rest of the wrestling forums? And, watch out for sock puppets. Some Wrestling News World members are sure to create accounts so that they can try to save their page. Scorpion0422 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Keep - Thoughts from creator of page

This page was not created for members of the forum to promote themselves and to bash other members. I created and maintained this page (for the better part of a month) in order for it to be informative more than anything. I believe it is relevant as at least one example of another article on Wikipedia, that of the Internet Wrestling Community. WNW has also been quoted to be one of the better stops on the internet for "real" news about the American professional wrestling industry.
Having said that, this page HAS degenerated into an extension of rather juvenile feuds (on both sides, by the looks of it, due to the deletion of this article being brought up at this time) that are unnecessary in the forum itself, and totally out of place on Wiki. I do acknowledge that this is so, as the proof is in the history link for the article. I advocate one of two solutions: restricting editing access to the page or deleting it outright. Whichever decision is made would suffice, though I would personally like to see the page remain on Wiki.
Let me stress that I am not a staff member of the forums in question and did not create this page for promotion of the site, forum, or any one individual. My original article included a plea to forum regulars not to add themselves to the page in order for it to remain neutral and solely informative to those who wish to know a little more about the "internet wrestling community" and the culture of internet forums and discussion boards in general.
Once again, do as you will. If this page is deleted, I will not try to recreate it. --UserNumber586 07:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:WEB. Unremarkable Alexa rating of 1,678,641. --NMChico24 07:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlikely that this will make any difference, but I'd like to note that wrestlingnewsworld.com, the parent site by which the forum can be accessed, has an Alexa rating of 128,371. --UserNumber586 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NMChico24. utcursch | talk 10:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and generally poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, others. MrMurph101 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious spam (and meets WP:CSD). Kusma (討論) 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Search[edit]

No claim of notability, including no Alexa ranking. Article added by website owner. Haakon 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD page was blanked after one minute by Neo Search article creator. He later removed its entry from the AfD log. --Haakon 12:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no context. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 17:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is probably a hoax. Ian Cheese 12:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no Google hits for "Steve Willis" together with any of the topics in the article. The website http://www.stevewillis.eu/ is hosted by a free webspace provider. A collaboration as described in the article (a sydicated UK/Ireland radio programme) is extremely unlikely.Ian Cheese 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never heard of him - if its not a hoax, its not notable - two hours a week on a local AM radio station in the UK is all the website claims he has. --Kiand 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used to listen to Today with Steve Willis when we lived in Ireland, reception was not great as we lived outside Dublin, but he was very popular. Reading the bit about the gaps in the programme makes sense. I did remember those. He did often read emails out from people in Spain, Gibraltar and the UK. That programme I can say with certainly was a syndicated programme. ClaireLMillington 13:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Possible single purpose account: ClaireLMillington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment While I had difficulty finding any entries for him I found one reference to his program in 2003[24], so it looks like this might be a real person, though not too notable in Google terms and possibly non-notable enough to justify deletion without more source information. ww2censor 14:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look at User:ClaireLMillington's contributions. "She" removed this article's entry from today's log. User:Paul-Johnson and User:Roy Wedge, the editors of the article, are also new accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Cheese (talk • contribs)

Keep There are google hits for "steve willis.eu" which is exactly what he gives on air. I used to read the news on 2fm overnight, and later went to Galway Bay FM. I knew Steve Willis, back in about 1999 when he used to use the RTÉ Radio Centre, to present his programme up until 2001 if my memory serves me right. I am now the Group Editor for Galway Now magazine. He certainly is notable in Ireland. SineadNiNeachtain 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Possible single purpose account: SineadNiNeachtain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment Sorry, but as a new user, I just followed some links and thought that I had done the right thing. Very sorry, but it wasn't clear. I am a new user, still learning how it works.

I can confirm that this is a genuine article. He is also mentioned in www.blogorrah.com along with Irish model Glenda Gilson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLMillington (talk • contribs)

Comment I stated in my write up that it was a syndicated programme. This is true, but after reading it back it sounds like it syndicated to UK and Ireland together. It broadcast from Ireland and was also syndicated to Spain. The English programme was seperate.

If there is anything else you need to know, please just ask. He is on tonight hopefully, I will be tuning in. Paul-Johnson 16:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- — Possible single purpose account: Paul-Johnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Strong Delete Fails notability criteria at WP:BIO, and I'm not impressed by the appearance of two users whose only contributions to Wikipedia are keep votes in this AfD and one attempt at suppressing the AfD entry altogether. Equendil Talk 18:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Keep Lets be fair here. If it's any consolation, I did tune in and I did hear him. It ties in and I see this to be accurate. I believe this was added essentially, in good faith, and after spending some time reading what various people have commented, I deem this to be acceptable. Maybe we should contact Steve Willis himself and get his comments. Any takers???

I cant as I am not even registered with you, I just came by as I was looking something up re Dormston School, and I saw the name Steve Willis and it took me here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.179.220 (talk • contribs) .

Why on earth would we want his comments ? Equendil Talk 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If there is such a thing. When my family lived in Gibraltar (we returned to UK in 2005) Dad used to have the Steve Willis Today programme in the evening. The programme was originally from either UK or Ireland, although I don't know which.

I have also found references to Steve Willis on DebtSmart.com, Express and Star (Newspaper) September 2003, Shropshire Star same period. BBC Aerial Magazine June 2006, and BBC Local radio Website. Beetroot1 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above is the user's only edit on Wikipedia, which won't surprise anyone, he also removed the last unsigned tag above (the IP one) that I added, I'm putting it back. Equendil Talk 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also tried to blank the whole AfD page ... Equendil Talk 00:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt should be noted that the radio station mentioned in the article is a student-run station [25] and does indeed show Willis as the presenter for Sunday evenings 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. So...if the reason for deletion is "hoax" then I would vote keep. I would abstain if the reason was "notability." Risker 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone gets all frantic, I have been posting here since December 2005, live in Canada, and only read this article and did fact checking due to the AN/I comments. Risker 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not noteable. Cruft.

--Blue Tie 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. WAS 4.250 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never heard of him, reliable sources never heard of him, and everybody who has heard of him appears to be a brand new user. Guy 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Agree with Guy - seems like a sockpuppet creation. There have been lots of attempts to squeeze non-notable Steve Willis onto other pages of late. Users Stevewillis, 82.37.179.220 and VickyRoper (and possibly EmmaWaldren) may be other sock puppets, see here. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (plus fixing my link, --Plumbago 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, I reported the incident on AN/I, WP:AN/I#Steve_Willis.27_Sockpuppet_Theater Equendil Talk 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO oh and can we turn up the radio to drown out all the meat/sockpuppets on this page? --Charlesknight 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a new user, just signed up today. I have been reading all these comments, so I followed the link to http://www.stevewillis.eu and I notice that there is a response from Steve Willis himself. I don't think he's too pleased about it. Just thought you all should know.

This is my very first contribution. Hope non of you mind. D@taM@n 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing right now on that site I can see. Equendil Talk 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Click HOME at the top!!!! D@taM@n 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::: Oh but there is, HOWEVER, it appeared AFTER our new editor told us about it. Amazing stuff, I'm sure you'd agree. Does D@taM@n have a computer that sees into the future? Maybe amazing mental abilities? or is there a more mundane reason - who can say! (HINT: next time edit your website first and then tell people about it using your sockpuppet) --Charlesknight 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, it works now. Equendil Talk 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now ... Equendil Talk 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I email him and ask him when he added the coments. But I don't see your problem. D@taM@n 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second thing about sockpuppeting is to get your story straight. So when you say that maybe I emailed him, make sure you don't say something else elsewhere. --Charlesknight 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am Paul Johnson, I made the original page, that you are all making a fuss about. The information that I have provided is true and accurate as far as I know. I have seen the comments on his website and, I am very sorry if I have caused any upset. These comments on steve's site appeard around 18.00 UTC, but went off again later this evening. Paul-Johnson 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking that it's possible to relist an AFD and exclude new and unregistered editors from the process? Because I think that would be sensible before the sockpuppets start breeding. --Charlesknight 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really necessary, any closing admin will be able to see what's going on here and make his decision accordingly. Equendil Talk 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - someone is now attacking my page - what an interesting user history! --Charlesknight 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock/meat puppet by any stretch of the imagination. I am a "Willisette" which is what he calls his female followers, he was pulled up back in 2004 for using the term "WOG's" meaning Willis's Old Gals, a play on Terry Wogans TOG's. hence I am just a listener to his show, He was also connected with Telford FM and friend of Ian Perry, former presenter of Beacon Radio's Midnight Line. I see the comment on the steve willis website has gone again. Along with some slight realignments. It was their at 07.00h this morning. Beetroot1 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you just happened to end up on Wikipedia coincidently the same week as several other new users started making edits related to a "Steve Willis", completely unknown to Wikipedia until then, and not exactly a celebrity in the first place ? It is also a coincidence that, like the other users, you happen to know fine details about this Steve Willis, and care very much about him, so much so you had to blank this AfD ? Amazing ! Equendil Talk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

',,,Strong Keep I seem to remember I when I visited my friends in Dublin a few years back we listened to a radio station by the name of Phoenix FM. I do remember hearing someone by the name of Steve Willis - that's all I can really add to this debate.82.47.100.243

Let me get this right, you have cable broadband and your ISP is blueyonder just like the other anon involved, and blueyonder also happen to be Steve's hosting company, your IP traces back to Wolverhampton, which happen to be where Steve allegedly work [26]. You also happen to have no other edit from that IP. Do you *really* think we're that stupid ? Equendil Talk 18:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Pheonix FM is a extremely low-power (25W EIRP), community radio station based in a portakabin at a shopping centre. Its presenters do not come anywhere close to the notability requirements to be on the Wikipedia. Your apparent friends would have had to visit Blanchardstown, not Dublin City, to even receive Pheonix FM. --Kiand 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What really impresses me about our new editors is how unlike most novice editors they jump straight into AFD debates, sadly none of them have any time to edit any other pages. --Charlesknight 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment - I too would consider myself a Willisette, I am lookikng at the WCR website at his photo as I sit here, flicking my lady-bean. Does anyone have any more (different) piccys of him please? ClaireLMillington 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Possible single purpose account: ClaireLMillington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Additionally note that this is the second time this sockpuppet has tried to vote keep in this AFD. --ForbiddenWord 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and followup arguments. (Blatant sock-puppetry and related vandalism annoying) Guliolopez 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I lived in Ireland several years ago and i used to be a regular listener to Steve Willis on Cool FM. I now live in the county of Berkshire and have most recently heard Steve on London NewsTalk, and have occassionally seen Steve read the news on London Tonight. I would describe Steve Willis as a locum broadcaster, however i would say that Steve is a notable person and this page should be kept. Many thanks, Tania Evans 80.189.171.58 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — I am AMAZED to notice that the single edit by this new member of the (sock)family is to this AFD. It's sooo lucky for Steve that so many of his fans just happen to find this AFD. ': has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. --Charlesknight 18:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it even more amazing that they listened to a Northern Irish radio station in Ireland, especially as its transmission site is relatively well shielded and its only cross-NI coverage is on DAB - which very few Irish people have receivers for. I also find it amazing that every listener who "heard him" a few years ago happens to stumble across to this to vote, and that they're all avid AM radio listeners as well as FM and DAB - must be hard keeping up with three modes of transmission to follow eh? --Kiand 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a radio broadcaster myself, (as explained in earlier comments) It is quite possible to listen to any radio. My last radio station was Galway Bay FM and we used to listen to Red FM (Corcaigh) online. I think the comments of 80.189.171.58 are quite plausable. She did not say that she listened off air or online. Also Ireland is a general term, again non specific, (ROI/NI. She says she lives in Berks. UK, After checking the IP, I do indeed see a London connection, and Newstalk 1152 I would have thought would be receivable in that area. I really cannot believe we are all debating how well known he is. What do you all want? Me to put a photo of him on the Galway Now website? SineadNiNeachtain 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need, because as another single edit user, you're almost certainly a sockpuppet too. No need to waste even more of your time at this utterly pointless exercise, because I think you should see by now that the article is going to be deleted. --Kiand 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just delete it then? rather that accuse me of being a sockpuppet? It stikes me that anyone who gives a plausable response, or you disagree with, are classed as sock puppets. I'm sure you will find plenty of references too him if you take the trouble too look. At no time have you ever seen me vandalise anything, though I would consider it now.

I have explained once before - I used too work with him, I don't want sex with him or anything, just to stick up for what is right. (By the way) Comment - Why is their not a page about me? I would be reasonably well known too!! SineadNiNeachtain 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sigh - ok, let's accept for the moment that you are a real person, what VERIFIABLE source can you point us towards? not "I think", "I know", "I saw", ~~"I put a sock over my hand,~~ but a hard piece of evidence. This is your chance, show us the evidence... --Charlesknight 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would also like to see this. "Hard evidence" doesn't cover websites you or any of the other supposed people who've voted on this thread own/run/work for, for a start. So far, the only "hard evidence" we have is that he does two hours a week on a student-run AM radio station, which means he fails entirely on notability requirements. Theres no proof he ever worked for Today FM, and no web references to it; no proof he ever presented London Tonight and no web references, and so on. No evidence at all. --Kiand 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have found!! ClaireLMillington 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC) This was done to welcome him back from Ireland, He still does other shows, but this is the station who got the credit for having him.[reply]

OK, that proves what new information? That he works on a AM student radio station.... which we already knew as the sole provable piece of information about him. Anything else you can drag up from your personal archives that might actually prove some notability, cause community radio presenters don't come close to the requirements. --Kiand 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe you don't know who he is. I bet non of you have even heard his show. And what makes you people the judge & jury in this case.SineadNiNeachtain 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope no idea who he is. No I've never heard his show because I don't tend to listen to student radio stations. And we are the Judge and jury because we have read Wikipedia policies. By the way, I am going to request a checkuser on your and Claire's IP addresses because I suspect they might be the same. --Charlesknight 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who he is because he's not notable in the wider radio market, or the Irish one, and I haven't heard his show because I don't live in Wolverhampton, or indeed listen to AM radio or community radio at any stage. And when/if he was on Phoenix FM, well, I don't live in the car park of the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre because their signal doesn't go much further. And I'd support a full sock-check of the IPs and new user accounts involved in this pointless charade. --Kiand 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I particularly liked about the notice Willis put on his website (now interestingly removed) was that he talked about Wikipedia as if he'd just heard about it ("some site called Wikipedia"). When, in fact, he'd set up a user account, User:Stevewillis, several months ago to spam the same sort of vain nonsense. Either he's a dreadful liar (surely not!), or dementia is setting in at an early age. Best get to the doctor Steve. --Plumbago 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, I'll add it to the AN/I case, though nobody seems to care there. I suppose this should go to checkuser, but then, checkuser is not supposed to be used for obvious sockpuppetry, so I hope an admin will step up and stop this nonsense instead. Equendil Talk 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either a hoax, or it fails WP:V very badly. Google test didn't come up with any answers for that that question, so I'm inclined to

say Delete as unverified information. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to say, i find it quite ammusing with all these comments re sock puppetry - I worked with the guy and can verify that the guy does exist and he is quite a popular broadcaster.SineadNiNeachtain 14:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No-one is denying that he exists. The debate is whether he is notable enough to appear in the Wikipedia. Given that he is just one of many presenters working in a local radio station, his notability is very much up for grabs. That he's (ineptly) been using sock-puppets to vainly promote himself in Wikipedia is, to a degree, a secondary issue (though it hardly helps his case). Anyway, I don't know why I'm saying this to what's probably another of his sock-puppets. --Plumbago 14:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear that SineadNiNeachtain may not be a sockpuppet after all. She has a website here, but I can't find a way to contact her directly to check this account really is being operated by her. --Plumbago 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the second time SineadNiNeachtain has tried to vote in this AFD. --ForbiddenWord 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty2product[edit]

Delete: Self promoting company with no evidence of notability. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1110 ghits. MER-C 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete2dustbin! fails WP:CORP --Charlesknight 12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Haakon 13:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had this message from the site's author on my talk page:-

very sorry if the entry appears as self-promotion, and i'm hoping you'll have some guidance to make it appear less so. i was sent email that there was an inactive link for us in the 'flux television' entry, and thought it was my responsibility to correct it. i also took the opportunity to set up supporting links w/ other wiki articles. re: satisfying the criteria for companies and corporations, i'd refer you to this link, an international list of publications not authored by twenty2product that feature the work of the company. if you still feel the article is best deleted, i'll make no more of the matter. best wishes, Twenty2 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)terry[reply]

— Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still remains self promotional, and no evidence of notability. Provided this article is expanded to explain it's notability in full, my vote may change to keep. --Paulus 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

catch22? - i fear if i make the article subject more notable, it also becomes more self promotional. please advise, what is the specific criteria for notability? --twenty2

Delete, although I thank you for asking, twenty2. Check out WP:CORP and WP:N. That should help you get a handle on what constitutes notability in this context. Pleather 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete understood, i'll trouble you no further. --twenty2

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needlegun[edit]

Fancruft born of the confusion of the historical Needle gun with the real prototype Special Purpose Individual Weapon. Leibniz 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to Flechette as a "cultural references" section or more likely Delete for OR. This article appears to be about fictional recurrences of a type of weapon in science fiction, but there is no objective connection between these recurrences except, well, in this article, which makes it original research. -Markeer 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*I fear the fanboys are quite capable of turning the flechette article into gamecruft in case of a merge. Leibniz 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Weapons in science fiction for other articles. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge or Delete as per Markeer. If merged, OR speculation needs to be removed Bwithh 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to say, the plasma rifle featured in many works of Sci-Fi under that name, there seems to be little connection between the various devices cited here (other than they fire a variety of non conventional projectiles). Equendil Talk 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very common type of sci-fi weaponry. - CNichols 04:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto. - Heilemann 04:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think needle gun and needlegun should be merged or disambiguated. A disambiguation page might be in order because a "needlegun" is also an air-powered tool used aboard Navy ships for chipping off old paint. =Axlq 03:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Somers[edit]

Non-notable author. Leibniz 13:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small press, zines, and short stories, and that's it. Uh uh, not enough. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom --Bill.matthews 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As cited in the article, the author's first novel was (sorta favorably) in the Sunday New York Times Book Review, indicating he is already more noted that 99.999% of the American writers out there. When Calton gave a list of non-notable points and said "that's it" he wasn't telling the truth. Does Calton have a grudge against Jeff, or is he just malicious? You make the call. VivianDarkbloom 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What IS your major malfunction, Bucky? Small press, zines, and short stories WERE what was listed, so NOTHING I said was untrue, your paranoia notwithstanding. CLAIMS of a notice in the NYTBR means nothing without either actual citation or what the notice actually WAS -- Bylined review? One graf in the "New in Paperback" column? Passing mention in a larger article? Creative Arts Book Company IS a small press -- and I ought to know, since it was based in the town I lived in -- and its reputation has dropped markedly since my last acquaintance, since a little reasearch shows that the SFWA notes that it seemed to have morphed into some sort of vanity press [27] by 2001, further weakening the case against this guy.
By the way, if you have some sort of point to make, don't disrupt Wikipedia to do so with your mass removal of "prod" tags with the oddball reasoning of "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement". --Calton | Talk 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If the NYT Book Review claim were sourced to an independent reliable source, I'd consider it significant evidence of notability. But it isn't sourced, and the article isn't sourced. So I believe that deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- new label, self-admittedly lacking any signed artists. Luna Santin 07:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagued Emotions[edit]

Delete - the first thing that springs to mind is that it fails WP:CORP Charlesknight 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and it's a record label with no artists signed to it. --Charlesknight 13:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and where do we keep the AFD cat tags? --Charlesknight 13:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What AfD cat tags ? Equendil Talk 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails CSD A7 Equendil Talk 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial By Fire (band)[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7 - tagged. PJM 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septim's Pride[edit]

Article for web comic that makes no assertions of notability, and fails WP:WEB. Seems to be self-promotional spam to build audience of web comic started 2 weeks ago. Leuko 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the comic. The users on my forum decided to follow suit of another popular webcomic Concerned and make a wiki for it. In no way is this advertising or anything of that nature. The only reason I even signed up here was to correct a minor detail one of the users had put in the wiki article. The article in of itself is a work-in-progress I'm told and will be continued to be

filled with more content as they work on it. In no way is this 'self-promotional spam'. bchick222 12:46, 24 September 2006

Comment: However, Concerned has been written about in various magazines, which would qualify it for a WP article, whereas your webcomic has received no independent press, making it ineligible for a WP article. Leuko 17:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does an internet gaming site, such as the Planet sites, count as independent press? There are many mods for Half-Life 2 that have wiki articles here that have not been written about in magazines. So what constitutes independent press? I could make my own Elder Scrolls site and make a news item and review of the comic. Would that be independent press? Even though I have not had any 'press' talk about it, I have tons of support on the multiple forums I frequent. Where do you draw the line? If you are that concerned about it, I will submit the site to PlanetElderScrolls and pray they make a news item of it. Seriously though, it has been out for 2 weeks. Of COURSE it won't have independent press. I say just give it time, my friend. bchick222 13:14, 24 September 2006

Comment: The WP:WEB guidelines require 1) multiple and 2) non-trivial independent coverage of a website to be deemed notable enough for a WP article. Reviews from other websites are only non-trivial if they themselves are notable and pass WP:RS. Self-reviews, reviews from obscure websites, or forum postings really don't meet that mark. Once the site reaches the criteria, I will gladly support its inclusion. However, until that time, I am not convinced that the article is anything more than WP:VSCA. Leuko 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously, this Wiki just gives useful information to those that would like to know more about the comic. Deepfatfryed 18:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not an indescriminate collection of information or a directory of webcomics. Leuko 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll agree that it hasn't recieved any news attention in any sort of form besides people recommending people to the comic. If that meets your view of an unnecessary article for wikipedia then by all means let's delete it. However, do NOT call it 'self-promotional spam' as it is NOT that. I even looked under the wiki pages about what constitutes spam and this is NOT it. You drew the wrong conclusion on that one. Like I said before, my forum members and readers wanted to make this wiki so that info about the comic, the protagonist, and the story in general could be laid out for others. That said, I agree that the comic hasn't had any media recognition and I would not oppose a removal if that small detail breaks some sort of rules here. I truly think you are over-reacting though. bchick222 21:14, 24 September 2006

Delete, article does not meet our oficial content policies as it is unverifiable through third-party reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an internet guide. Sorry, bchick222, but wikipedia really isn't the place for this. Note to whoever closes this: Also delete Septim's pride. -- Dragonfiend 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at Concerned. It's a web comic with a good amount of viewers. Exactly when did it qualify to attain a Wiki? Did it need to be shown in a magazine? Did it need 1000 users? The point where a comic meets the conditions is gray. Deepfatfryed 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not much of a grey area. As per long-standing official policy, Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiable information from reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. So, yes, the fact that Concerned has been covered by at least three magazines and Septim's Pride "hasn't had any media recognition" means that we'll keep the former but not the latter. Our goal is to create a reliable encyclopedia on topics of historical importance. You may be more interested in Comixpedia which allows original research on webcomics, and doesn't require third-party reliable sources for its articles. -- Dragonfiend 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability. Just check out the website. - Hahnch e n 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense/attack page.--Andeh 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple Guide to Surviving America for Australians[edit]

The article is essentially nonsense and of a nn nature. Rob (Talk) 14:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

The result of this debate was delete — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamlorio.net[edit]

ANNOUNCEMENT: It should be noted that AlQoraton was NOT the creator of this article, as has been suggested below, rather towards Jamino (me) should be directed any discrepancies in regards to posting regulations. It has been put forward that AlQoraton asked members to post their views on this debate via the TeamLorio.net web-forums. However, as he didn't write this article, it should be understood that rules and regulations regarding the posting of Articles on Wikipedia are unclear to him as, obviously, he has previously had no reason to have read them. However, as I seriously doubt the members of the TeamLorio.net forums will be deterred from defending this article merely by the notice posted above, I must also stress as the sModerator of the Forums in question that NOBODY from TeamLorio.net simply makes an account to tip the scales of this debate. This achieves nothing. This message has also been posted on the Forum itself.--Jamino 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded, no where near WP:CORP/WP:WEB. Vanity wouldn't suprise me. Andeh 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa.com - Traffic Rank for teamlorio.net: 4,778,194[28]

According to Google [29], only [30] links to the website.

Website forum has 86 registered members[31]
Delete Per WP:CORP quite clearly Vanity. --Charlesknight 14:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All company-references removed and article meets WP:WEB. AlQoraton 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me which part of WP:WEB it matches with? Just so there is no confusion. (for disclosure purposes it should be pointed out that Alqoraton is the creator of the article) --Charlesknight 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 and 3 of WP:WEB. (for disclosure purposes it should be pointed out that I am NOT the creator of the article, merely an insider and frequent editor.) --AlQoraton 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page you are part of Teamlorio.net. Also, what notable awards has the website won? I couldn't find the word award anywhere in the article.--Andeh 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Alqoraton, braindeath on my part.

following Andy's question - I do not see how it matches criteria 3 of WP:WEB which is basically about non-trival distribution/broadcast. What is the source of this non-trivial distribution? --Charlesknight 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All teamlorio.net animations are posted on/distributed by Newgrounds. Several have been on the frontpage and won Portal awards. --AlQoraton 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at first glance, that would suggest it actually fails WP:WEB which states that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. --Charlesknight 17:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but then why are Joseph Blanchette's, David Firth's or other well known Newgrounds author's pages not up for deletion? I don't see why teamlorio.net, as a Flash production team, couldn't have a Wiki-page if they can. --AlQoraton 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to list them for deletion if you believe they should be deleted according to the deletion policy.--Andeh 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but it doesn't answer my question. Just look around people, there are more well-known Newgrounds authors on Wikipedia. Why is teamlorio.net different? --AlQoraton 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not, but Wikipedia has over a million articles there are ALWAYS articles here that should not be. The fact that those are here and maybe should not be, just means that nobody has gone around to AFDing them. However now you have raised their profile to the community, I'm sure that if they are not notable they will be AFD'd shortly (which is generally the result of someone saying "hey what about article X!"). I'll be checking them out myself when I get a moment later.--Charlesknight 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO and WP:WEB are very different things, you are referring to people, this article is on a website.--Andeh 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article ISN'T about a website, it's about TWO people (not ONE, like the other examples) making Flash cartoons. So you're saying separate pages for TheGreyPilgrim and Mithrandir with the same content would be OK? --AlQoraton 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if it isn't about a website or company, then it must meet WP:BIO. Which it doesn't appear to meet at all.--Andeh 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash artists are also professionals who get a great deal of public interest, just like musicians, actors, authors, painters, etc. WP:BIO also clearly states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.". And just for the record: I'm not trying to get other Flash artist's pages deleted. I'm trying to understand why the examples I gave have been here for over a year or even longer (without anyone noticing they, apparently, don't meet Wikipedia policy) and this page gets flagged withing two months. To all so-called "patrollers": I advise you to start looking for some SERIOUS breaches in Wikipedia policy and stop coming up with a new policy every time to make your story plausible. And I also invite you to first suggest an alteration of the article, not immediate deletion. --AlQoraton 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL (To all so-called "patrollers": I advise you to start looking for some SERIOUS breaches in Wikipedia policy and stop coming up with a new policy every time to make your story plausible). Ranting at fellow editors does not help your case. --Charlesknight 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my point. --AlQoraton 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Andeh 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)--Andeh 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:WEB so lets keep it. I agree that simply hosting your webpage on Newsgrounds is not signifigant but thate fact that it has been on the front page and given awards suggests that it is in fact notable. Evidence of those things should be presented though. AmitDeshwar 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if WP:WEB says a site is trivial, why does it matter where on that site something appears? --Charlesknight 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vanity? Where? Is the Salad Fingers Wiki also up for deletion due to vanity? How about the World of Warcraft Wiki? The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air Wiki? Any Wiki describing another product of entertainment? No. This Wiki simply disects another product of entertainment, one known as Team Lorio. At NO point during the Wiki does it claim that Team Lorio is the best, or better than anyone else, nor does it even claim to be GOOD beyond what results have provided proven facts to subtantiate. Also, if you're going to post in this debate then at LEAST provide a comment that supports what you're saying, rather than just insulting something that need not be insulted. Wiki-Management, I challenge you to find any form of vanity in this article. If it exists, which it does not, I will remove it. I wrote this article, and great care was taken to ensure all guidelines were met. Therefore is there ARE any breaches then this article should be flagged for ALTERATION, not deletion. That is absurd. Jamino 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up for deletion because some users may believe it is vanity, it is up for deletion because there is no evidence that the site or ex-company is notable enough per Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:WEB).--Andeh 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:WEB in every conceivable way. It has not won any well-known awards. It hasn't been distributed via a site that is independent of the creators (submitting it to Newgrounds makes it difficult to claim independence as it wouldn't be in there without Team Lorio putting it on there and the notes make it clear that Newgrounds hosting is considered trivial). It hasn't been a subject of multiple non-trivial published works. IrishGuy ^talk 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails to assert notability (see WP:WEB) and is something of a vanity page as well hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlQoraton (Team Lorio's Mithrandir) comment's on the website linked to in the article say it all but there doesn't seem to be a plausible reason to keep a page about teamlorio.net on Wikipedia. --Charlesknight 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to stay as objective as possible by not referring to teamlorio.net as us or using Mithrandir as a nickname. Don't make me start and don't twist my words! I was referring to your (as in all the people who posted Delete) opinion on the matter. And what's with the damn "ATTENTION" sign? Don't make it look like teamlorio.net is forcing people to come here. They can make up their own mind. --AlQoraton 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: the Attention sign is what we post whenever it appears that someone outside of Wikipedia is attempting to sway the vote. In that case, we remind them that what counts is the strength of your arguments, not the number of bodies you can muster. Wikipedia, after all, is not a democracy. Second, you're getting too worked up over this; please review what we have to say about civility on Wikipedia before you post next. Captainktainer * Talk 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the sign is ment for, I can read. But in that case: why does the sign specifically say If you came here because you were told so at the teamlorio.net forums? This is just an insult to teamlorio.net's integrity. They are not telling anybody to come here, so to keep this discussion as fair/clean as possible I would strongly suggest to remove that particular reference. And second, I already reminded Charlesknight to stop posting a new policy every time to make your story plausible. I've read WP:CIVL...so allow me quote myself: Thank you for making my point. --AlQoraton 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An insult to your integrity? hum... so how does They are not telling anybody to come here match with And if you want to help, make a Wikipedia account and post a Keep message on that discussion page.. There is no problem with doing that - however getting on your high horse and claiming to do A when you are actually doing B - well that DOES demonstrate you have no integrity.

Informing people on what they could do is something different then telling people to come here and post a message. Like I said before: they can make up their own mind. --AlQoraton 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is there as the forum message was encouraging fans/members to come here and vote keep, that is a simple notice to deter any users to do that and instead participate in the discussion. Interesting enough, recently.. "The board administrator requires all members to log in".--Andeh 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the result of an options reset via a version upgrade. Also, that does not in anyway restrict you from checking what is posted on the forums. All you must do is simply create an account. In light of the previous comment in regards to AlQoraton's integrity - Obviously the members of the forums are going to want the article to be kept. They wouldn't be members otherwise. Jamino 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the following reasons, all of which are grounded on Wikipedia policy:

No reliable sources external to the site or Newgrounds.com are available within the article.
No external reliable sources testifying to the notability of the website are available. Generally, I don't believe notability in its own right is a reason to delete. In this case, teamlorio.net has not obtained sufficient press coverage to allow us to write about it from a neutral point of view. Because there is not enough external criticism or analysis to allow us to write about it with that key policy in mind, the article should not be on Wikipedia.
Substantial quantities of the information within the article are unverified, even if we were to accept the official site as a reliable source. Captainktainer * Talk 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a tiny fan club does not meet WP:WEB Vic sinclair 09:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blanked (and replaced with cursing) by author. NawlinWiki 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mihalism[edit]

"Advertisement for non-notable website. Alexa rank = 2,202,358 [32]. WP:PROD was tried, but deleted by article creator (who is, coincidentally, User:Mihalism). FreplySpang 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advert. Leibniz 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a perfect example of a vanispamcruftisement. Utterly non-notable, written by owner, for promotional purposes. Picaroon9288 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fry it It's everything an article on Wikipedia shouldn't be. Equendil Talk 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. lmao at this article. Clearly for promotional purposes:

"Mihalism Images is an easy image hosting solution for everyone."

AmitDeshwar 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, lacking verifiable notability. Luna Santin 07:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line in the sand[edit]

Non-notable political video. Its main claim to fame is that it has been promoted by American Renaissance, Stormfront, National Vanguard, and other white nationalist/neo-Nazi organizations. The film itself does not merit an entry in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Delete Brimba 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability. JASpencer 15:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 "Straight Outta Lynwood." This song does not merit an entire page as it does not have a music video or a single released for this specific song. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Idiot[edit]

Was not released as a single and is non-notable. Joltman 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya its not a single yet. Its a valid track on the CD. Koolgiy 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know it's a valid track, I've heard it, but the fact that it exists is not enough to get its own article. And for it not being a single yet, we have no idea if it will be. Joltman 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a single yet, it might never be in the future, and if as the entry says, "little information is available", then why write an entry ? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Plus what makes this song notable enough to have its own entry in the first place ? Equendil Talk 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if it is released as a single. Resolute 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteYa good idea. There shouldn't be an article for a song, that hasn't been released for a single yet. Even if its on the CD. Koolgiy 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual album tracks are not usually notable. --keepsleeping slack off! 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why delete an article on a song which is going to be released in a few days?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Gazpacho 17:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's out now, we might as well keep it and let people add stuff to it, rather than some fan coming on, only to found out he can't add anything due to this being deleted.--D'Argent 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Straight Outta Lynwood. Not a single Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per D'Argent Killswitch Engage
Keep Weird Al songs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article could be expanded beyond a stub, perhaps it could be kept. But as it stands, I don't think there's a sufficient amount of information on this non-single album track to justify it getting its own page. There's no information here that isn't already on the Straight Outta Lynwood page. --Mikibacsi1124
Delete and recreate if it is released as a single per Resolute. I'm a weird al fan, but if this does not fit notability rules, it shouldn't be an article. --Will Mak 050389 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Straight Outta Lynwood. As much as I'd like to see the article stay, there currently isn't enough to warrent it. JQF 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why not? Wikipedia takes itself too seriously as it is. RMc 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the album page M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 03:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to the album. If it gets released as a single, it will almost certainly become notable. Not just right now, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every albumtrack deserves its own article, only if it has any significance. If is released in the future however, I say keep. --Soetermans 13:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the song has been released, plenty of other songs have articles for their respective albums, just because you havent heard it, does not make it notable.Barcode 15:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the song has not been released. The album has been released, and the song is to be found therein. There's no indication that it will be released as a single as yet, although there's also no indication that it won't be. The argument that other albums have articles on every song (which I assume is what you're saying) isn't particularly relevant - partly because the fact that other articles of a certain type exist doesn't mean that any specific article of that type needs to exist and also because the albums which have longer articles (bear in mind this is a stub at best) on each one of their songs do so because they're highly significant albums like Dark Side Of The Moon. Al's latest may well become similarly significant, but give it about 30 years or so before it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with the album page. --Richmesiter 15:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Straight Outta Lynwood. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murray (politician)[edit]

an alderman, nothing more Mayumashu 15:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure whether this affects notability, but he was also a (poorly supported) candidate for mayor of Hamilton. JASpencer 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this particular entry is borderline, and I wouldn't have created the page at all had it not been for his mayoral run. I'm going to vote keep, but will accept the results one way or the other. CJCurrie 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable beyond the fact that he was controversial. Being a failed candidate for mayor and a more-or-less nn local councillor (with no outside claim to notability) doesn't meet WP:BIO. Finally, per the consensus at Vaughan, local councillors aren't notable by virtue of their position alone. -- Chabuk 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan isn't a major city. Hamilton is. Bearcat 03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both aldermen and mayoral candidates of major cities are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hamilton is a very notable city, well known in Canada. Any local alderman would be notable enough to keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant WP:BIO standard is "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". For the number of years in office, I don't see adequate evidence of sigificant press coverage, especially coverage beyond the local area. GRBerry 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tom Murray is a very well-known municipal figure in Hamilton, and has received extensive press coverage in the area. CJCurrie 22:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger bacon (musician)[edit]

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC and no reliable sources to back up what is actually in the article. Zero Google hits for "Ventor of Cleo" and no relevant hits for "Consistently Poor"+"Cover Your Ears". Nothing for "Camouflage Mail Truck Gonna Get You". Nothing in AllMusic. Prod tag was removed. ... discospinster _talk 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Vic sinclair 09:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Nick San 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to First two 7"s on a 12" (anything with no content to merge, I will simply redirect). Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filler (song)[edit]

Not notable as individual from album's article, no unique useful information. Switch 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles for exactly the same reasons, bundled as they are all from the same album:[reply]

In My Eyes (song) I Don't Wanna Hear It Straight Edge (song) Screaming at a Wall Of all these, the only one even close to notability is "Straight Edge", which would nonetheless contain no useful information not already found in the straight edge, Minor Threat and First two 7"s on a 12" articles. --Switch 16:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as much as I love the band (one of my favorites) I don't think these pages are needed. XdiabolicalX 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - trivially if there's no information in the articles. Rich Farmbrough, 10:13 4 October 2006 (GMT).
Merge and redirect: I'm with Rich, perfectly OK redirects. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JDate[edit]

Does not appear to fit WP:WEB but I wasn't comfy hitting the speedy button on this one so it goes to AfD. I had speedied the previous Spark Networks entry as non notable, but wasn't sure on this one. Tawker 16:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JDate is pretty notable (at least on the east coast, where I am). Google news hits [33] seem respectable. Brookline TAB, Akron Beacon Journal, Jerusalem Post and New York Observer all strike me as legit 3rd party sources. Alexa rank of 1,658 [34] is pretty solid too. Dina 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since it seems somewhat notable, careful with google hits though, JDate is mentionned, but not the focus of those articles. Equendil Talk 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly widely known internet dating service.--Prosfilaes 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:WEB criteria #2 - "website...has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." The site took the 2006 Webby award for Social Networking [35] --Barte 06:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (Disclosure: I am the current article's primary author)[reply]
Keep, has been mentioned in the tv show House. T REX_speak 00:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also mentioned in the tv show Help Me Help You. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic education[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a significant concept, a term coined by a non-notable professor, written like a stub. There's no name to even merge it with. Nekohakase 16:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. --Tarret 16:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not asserted, no sources, neologism, you pick the reason. Equendil Talk 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Otherkin. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elenari[edit]

It just doesn't assert notability. Mostly it's webcruft. Anomo 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn cruft without context or sources. Leibniz 16:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this seems to be related to Otherkin so I would say merge to that. Then again, otherkin might need to be deleted too, I'm not sure. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like your random fanfic cruft article of the day. Sandstein 09:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Otherkin. Vashti 00:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the article as is. Some of us have taken the elenari Healing Attunements & like the information separate like it is. Mary Arthur, specializing in estoteric methodology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.233.166 (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 Speedy Delete as a recreation of deleted material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limecat[edit]

Recreation of deleted article yet again. This recreation happened right after Encyclopedia Dramatica made it their featured article. Anomo 16:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the earth Bwithh 16:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Zalewski[edit]

Yet another occultist. Notability not asserted. Leibniz 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Please consider using {{db-bio}} instead of the AfD process for such entries. Equendil Talk 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought someone could argue that being "7=4 Adepts and co-chiefs of Thoth Hermes Temple" asserted notability. You never know with these occultists. Leibniz 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Per Equendil--Getaway 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google that shit[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete as WP:NEO bordering on protologism. Yes, on the surface, we all know what this phrase means, but WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of every verb+object combination. References are tenuous at best (so what if Dane Cook said it once?), and to top it off, it cites Urban Dictionary as a source. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FreplySpang 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up in school one day/Dictionary definition. --IslaySolomon 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that shit. Leibniz 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the urbandictionary. -Markeer 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing beyond etymology. JASpencer 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Riley (Performance Analyst)[edit]

Biography of non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO, only references in Google are Wikipedia articles. Leuko 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability is made. Equendil Talk 18:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though speedy would be just fine with me Nigel ^(Talk) 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Literate Engineer 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Walker[edit]

Biography of non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO, only references in Google are Wikipedia articles. Leuko 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a former footballer - that is notable. Mattythewhite 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His being a former footballer is only notable if he played at the top level, or had some other reason to be notable. There is no evidence of such. Resolute 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't actually say who he played for, and I can't find any evidence he was a professional footballer. Qwghlm 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Walker played for York City in the 1976/77 season. [36]. Scottmsg 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was York City a professional club in 1976/77? Punkmorten 06:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if they were, was the young Stuart Walker a full professional at the club or a youth player? The fact he only played two matches there and never played for another professional club suggests the latter. I agree with Oldelpaso's comment below that two Third Division games in the mid-1970s are not enough to claim notability. Qwghlm 07:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment York were professional (and still are) when he was a player

Keep. He is a former professional footballer - played in goal for York City when they were a league team. Markspearce 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former professional footballer and staff member of one of England's biggest clubs Dodge 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While 2 appearances for York meets the letter of the fully professional league phrase in WP:BIO, it probably doesn't meet the spirit of it. 2 appearances for a team in the lower reaches of the professional ranks doesn't constitute much of a pro career, and is unlikely to yield more than a trivial amount of verifiable material. Oldelpaso 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a tough call. I'm saying keep mainly because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no real need to delete this guy. Admittedly he is right on the cusp between notability and non-notability, but for the aforementioned reasons I'm going to say keep. aLii 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played professionally for a league club, and still involved professionally in the sport. I wouldn't see the creation of his article as really a high priority; but now that it's been done, I'd rather see it retained, as its not inconceivable that people would want to access his history given his present involvement with Aston Villa. Robotforaday 03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two appearances is technical compliance with WP:BIO at best. He may be a physio at Villa but is not the head physio see here. BlueValour 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifter Puller[edit]

Non-notable band, does not seem to meet requirements of WP:MUSIC, only independent mention is a link to a discussion board, which does not meet WP:RS Leuko 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the discussion Lifter Puller (album) The Land 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article is in process of being revised. Have had releases on significant indie labels of the late 90's/early 2000's. See http://www.selfstarterfoundation.com/lifterpuller.html or http://www.frenchkissrecords.com. Moreover, they are the predecessor of the critically-acclaimed band The Hold Steady, and with the latter band's third album coming out in a few weeks this page is certain to garner attention. In summary this band does, in fact meet the following notability criteria for WP:MUSIC:

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable.

Their musical influence is also mentioned in an interview with similarly verbose act The Mountain Goats, published last week on pitchforkmedia, and found here: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/37953/Interview_Interview_The_Mountain_Goats Grzond 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per above. Also, the band has recieved coverage in a number of notable publications, including Pitchfork [37],

Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages [38] [39], Rolling Stone [40] and the Village Voice [41], among others. They quite clearly meet the criteria for notablity. Idp 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per above. This band is legendary in MPLS and is becoming more legendary by the day because of the Hold Steady. Though their back catalogue is now out of print, they are what started the neo-art punk movement in the midwest. To delete this would completely insane.WSeconds 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Could never be considered non-notable in MPLS. ReverendG 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da ! Heard It Records[edit]

Advertising. Only one contributer, who has twice removed a PROD tag. This company is completely non-notable (probably becaue they're ve only just been invented). The only Google hit is their own website Chris 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. Crystallina 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joshua Johaneman 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Prolog 10:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine yronwode[edit]

NN author. There is some name dropping that claims to make her notable, but on her own merit, I'd say she fails WP:BIO as an author. Leibniz 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. According to Amazon.com, Catherine has authored (in some cases co-authored) 61 books. I'd say that even if none of these books are particularly successful, she is, by the sheer number of publications to her name. Srose (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - whoops. It seems that only the first 20 were authored/co-authored by Catherine Yronwode. She published the remainder. However, the first result on the previously linked search is in the top 45,000 book sales on Amazon.com. Most of the others are in the millions, however, so I'm switching to a weak keep. Srose (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She may not be notable as an author, but she definitely is as an editor. She was once significant in the comic book field; she was the editor of Eclipse Comics, which was possibly the top independent comic company in the U.S. at its height. She was very well-known in the industry. She also edited some of the earliest Will Eisner collections. —Chowbok 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep cat yronwode is an extremely well known, influential and respected woman in the comic book industry. -Markeer 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be quite a bit of vanity, self-promotion and linkspamming related to this page. I have also nominated Lucky Mojo. Leibniz 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, I've had nothing to do with this page so I don't know the intentions of the creator or editors, but regarding self-promotion/linkspamming, I'd say that while the section on other wiki-articles that link to her could certainly be removed, the bibliography of an author is normal and expected, as are external links for those wanting more information. That just tells me the article needs a cleanup, not deletion. And I would add...all of those sections provide evidence of notability, which was the criteria you nominated this article for. Can't have it both ways Leibniz. -Markeer 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed one of the more ridiculous sections, but the article still needs to be cleaned up more. I would argue that the article needs to focus on her contributions to the comic book field, for which she is notable, rather than on her small-press hippie voodoo books, for which she is not. But still, it shouldn't be deleted.

It should also be noted that yronwode herself is active on Wikipedia and has edited this article extensively. Somebody should probably tell her, diplomatically, that it's not the best idea to work on articles about yourself. —Chowbok 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely notable in her field(s) and for specific things she helped publish. The magick stuff she self-publishes is her semi-retirement career, so this is historical. As for User:Catherineyronwode, see for yourself. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've done an extensive rewrite treating her primary career with the attention it deserves (or at least a good stab in that general direction. --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For notability, I would still like to see some evidence per WP:BIO:

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

Her notability, not Eisner's. Independent evidence, not linkspam or something she wrote herself. Leibniz 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, a quick [Google search for "cat yronwode"] has, among ~30,000 other hits, links to interviews and articles by at least The Comics Journal, comicbookresources, and the Comics Buyers Guide on the first 2-3 pages. With newsarama, those three are the principal sources of comics industry news that I'm aware of. -Markeer 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Leibniz: keep in mind that her major published works, and influence on the industry, date from the early 1980s. I'll see what I can do, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable for editorship. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in the world of comics. DCEdwards1966 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The figure meets WP:BIO and is notable within the realm of comics. RFerreira 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netvideogirls[edit]

Non-notable porn website. Google and Alexa tests have their limitations here, I realize, but there's nothing that can qualify it in the way of reliable sources. Crystallina 17:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not even as far as porn sites go. — Joshua Johaneman 20:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catchpole 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hodology[edit]

The article itself claims this is a not-yet-notable neologism. Deville (Talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be genuine scientific terminology, not just made up. Not everything is in the OED yet. See Google scholar. Leibniz 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the headache-inducing and jargon-filled results I got from a google search. Srose (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srose, google finds all sorts of stuff. Google Scholar (see above) is better for this sort of thing. Leibniz 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Yes, I realize that. I had several sources coming into this debate: one of them was the Google Scholar search that you did (except that I capitilized the term). I also had the result of a dictionary search and an inconclusive Google Books search. I chose to use the plain old google search because it does, in fact, illustrate my point. I wouldn't want to use the same source twice; I wanted to provide another one. I can provide the rest if you like, but it appears to be unnecessary. If you would look at my google search results, you'd see that my source confirmed the notability of this subject just as well as yours did. Srose (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were not aware of google scholar and therefore wanted to point out its usefulness, that's all. Leibniz 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahh, thank you, then! I find it very useful for history in particular. ;) I'm sort of trying to figure out why your astericks aren't computing into wikicode... hm... Srose (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leibniz. It looks like the term is actively being used by the scientific comunity. The article needs expansion though. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to [42] the term "Hodology" was created by psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) from the Greek hodos, meaning "path". Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the (false) neologism remark and added a bit about Lewin (thanks to Pavel Vozenilek for the pointers). I still don't see how to classify the page. Michael Kinyon 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Especially after the addition of the Lewin cite this looks notable enough, though I would like to see it expanded to more than just some definitions. —David Eppstein 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commentary. RFerreira 23:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sierra[edit]

auto-biography of a non-notable music group. Nekohakase 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, 100's of non notable bands/groups/singers get added all the time, just add {{db-band}} to them. ;) --Andeh 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor wood[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unestablish notability. Nekohakase 17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nn bio/vanity, earns db-bio tag.--Andeh 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and unencyclopedic content. Delete, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. (Though, earning multiple gold and platinum records is a claim of notability, but it can probably be dismissed as nonsense.) - Mike Rosoft 20:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Colussi[edit]

Non-notable. The only hit he gets on yahoo is Wikipedia. Nekohakase 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, and 79 G-hits in total. --Nishkid64 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what nekohakase says, google also gets hits on his soccer career (which, for whatever reason, is not mentioned on his page).

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Band[edit]

"Viktor's first CD is in progress" Nekohakase 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of reliable sources indicating this band meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn band.--Andeh 18:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duct Tape Marketing[edit]

Self-promotional/vanity spam advertising new book. Username associated with article is the same as the book author's last name. Contested prod. Leuko 17:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure spam. See also John Jantsch. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 18:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this entry might appear to be spam but the term duct tape marketing has begun to represent a style of marketing for the small busines - yes, it also happens to be the title of a book, one that I authored, but the title was chosen to represent a metaphorical term that has gained a great deal of traction with small businesses. I have added some references to the term from major publications that don't reference the book title at all. Tracking from all of the major search engines shows the terms duct tape marketing receives several hundred searches daily - having nothing to do with a book. This term is very similar in nature to the term guerilla marketing User:Jantsch Sept 24, 2006

Comment How do you claim the title "just happens" to be the name of your book,when the first line of the article reads "Duct tape marketing, as outlined by John Jantsch in the 2007 release Duct Tape Marketing - The World's Most Practical Small Business Marketing Guide"? — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean "just happens" to imply "accidentally happens." The title of the book was chosen to capture a term, duct tape marketing, that is becoming well-known as a form of small business marketing. Again, I point to the term guerilla marketing, a Wikipedia page, and the the first few words of this entry - Guerrilla marketing, as described by Jay Conrad Levinson in his popular 1982 book Guerrilla Marketing, is an unconventional way of performing promotional activities on a very low budget.User:Jantsch

Delete with extreme prejudice, and give its creator a good spanking (metaphorically, of course). ---Charles 18:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, largely an adaptation of guerrilla marketing techniques to the online space. Author might be notable. Book/website/etc. are not.--Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

duct tape marketing is certainly not an adaptation of guerrilla marketing techniques to the online - it is representative of a systematic approach to marketing - something that is in fact a new concept for the typical small business. User:Jantsch

You know, this might be the point at which you realize that the buzzwords are hurting you. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Jantsch[edit]

Vanity self-promotional spam. Article consists solely of links to author's website and books for sale. Author's username is the same as the article. Contested prod. Suggest Userfying. Leuko 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---Charles 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant spam. Don't userfy - user pages should be for users Wikipedia related work only, not for spam like this. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Silverstein's Comments On WTC Building 7 Collapse[edit]

POV fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines on forking say that 'since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism.' If some account of the record of vandalism behind the creation of this article could be provided it would be helpful in assessing the AfD. I suspect that the real question here is whether this is a notable item not sufficiently dealt with elsewhere. If it were renamed "Pull it" it could be compared with an article like Let's roll to assess its notability.--Thomas Basboll 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no problem renaming the article to "Pull It" or something like that. The reason I think keeping the content is important is because the debate concerning whether pull meant "pull out the firefighters" or "pull down the building" is captured in this article. I'm pretty sure if we lose this information then the debate will once more rear its ugly head as it did in the main article a few weeks ago. Nay-sayers on Yay-sayers will retread old ground. I think having it as a reference and perhaps the battleground for additional debate is pretty important. And separating it from the main article will prevent too much minutiae being discussed in what should be a general overview. --Demosfoni 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info: This material is part of the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article.--Thomas Basboll 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article's contents are already at Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Silverstein.27s_statement_to_PBS; no need for a separate article to house a copy of the same material. Also, there's no chance that any user would ever come to Wikipedia and run a search for an article called "Larry Silverstein's Comments On WTC Building 7 Collapse". --Aaron 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. When will the conspiracy theory advocacy movement on Wikipedia end? Morton devonshire 23:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on things covered by notable sources are not advocacy, its making articles based on factual RS info. I begin to suspect the real purpose behind the vehemence is the fact that it is no secret that a Wikipedia article draws attention (re: google), and people would rather not allow such things to exist here for such reasons alone. Control of information. · XP · 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron GabrielF 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthy of separate article. Sandy 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. (Is there an echo in here?) Erechtheus 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable info to keep per international media coverage (US centric view is irrelevant). · XP · 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of the Loose Change and conspiracy crowd, these two words "pull it" that Larry Silverstein uttered in a 2002 PBS documentary are NOT notable. He was recounting the events of the day on 9/11, and a conversation he had that afternoon with the New York City Fire Department. Aside from the lack of notability of "pull it", it is excessive to have this discussed in three articles (this one, the controlled demolition article, which is a fork/subarticle of 9/11 conspiracy theories which also mentions "pull it"). It would be an arduous task to keep these three articles saying the same consistent thing about "pull it", and keep them WP:NPOV. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "pull it" is also and obscure term of art used by demolitionists. Silverstein is not a demolitionist. It is not clear how or why he would be using demolitionist terms. --Tbeatty 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that "pull it" is also very briefly mentioned in the Larry Silverstein article. So, this would be the fourth article that mentions "pull it". And, they have tried to put "pull it" into the 7 World Trade Center article, as well. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This nonsense is already covered on too many other articles. --Tbeatty 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note the edit summary at creation: "(Need this stuff for future arguments and reference)". Wikipedia is not the place for somebody's personal debate crib sheet and/or method of proof. While it may be convenient for the creator to have an article restating what is already said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not his personal storage resource. Erechtheus 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. Crockspot 01:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All relevent information already in one or more of the existing articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is already covered in enough depth according to the undue weight clause of NPOV on other articles.--MONGO 05:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron and MONGO. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, conspiracycruft and redundant per Larry Silverstein. Guy 10:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron and Aude. CWC(talk) 09:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant PoV fork and 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are spiraling out of control.--Rosicrucian 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly attempt to argue that up is down. Gazpacho 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protect or Userfy, As I mentioned above, this article was created by nay-sayers and yea-sayers alike. I organized into pro and con sections. I'm pretty sure if it gets deleted it's going to be recreated by someone else who thinks the topic has not gotten enough coverage in Wiki. I wouldn't mind keeping in on my home page if it is that obhorrent to the crowd. --Demosfoni 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't see that it still exists in the Controlled Demolition section. I really don't think it belongs under controlled demolition since it is its own topic: it involves the admittance by the buildings owner that building 7 was "pulled". BTW, I noticed that if you type "controlled demolition wtc" in the search engine you don't even get the "controlled demolition hypothesis of the world trade center buildings" page. --Demosfoni 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much info, we do not need a whole encyclopedia on some guy's offhand remark. Herostratus 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit extreme to have an article dedicated to two words. Merge not needed as it is already mentioned elsewhere. Sparkhead 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Member Informer[edit]

Non-notable. Article is a single sentence about an undistinguished podcast with only six or seven episodes since March 2006. Whoville 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of value there other than the link Nigel ^(Talk) 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pija[edit]

Nothing more than a dicdef for a foreign word. If needed, transwiki to the es Wiktionary, but only if needed. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 19:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Wikipedia in any way, since it's just a dicdef. By the way, "Sinonyms", are those Chinese words? :) Punkmorten 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deformables[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:WEB. A Flash cartoon with 5 distinct Google hits (for title plus author, since title is common word in other languages)... Fram 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject doesn't meet guidelines in WP:WEB. Equendil Talk 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice was removed by author of article, and page then moved to The Deformables: notice now readded. Fram 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:WEB. --Charlesknight 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7. I don't see an assertion of notability in that article. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removed. Let it run through here. --Ligulem 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland Mods[edit]

A Mod distributed online for some video game. The article has existed for more than a year with no expansion. Andrew Levine 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joshua Johaneman 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete There isn't even enough context for me to know what this is about, could have gone through {{db-empty}}. Equendil Talk 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Kim[edit]

Insufficiently notable child actor, created and defended by WP:SPA, fails WP:BIO and probably WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY, no response to concerns noted on Talk:Kenny Kim, prod removed without comment by author. Jim Douglas 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "appearances" do not notability make. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Club Yonkoma[edit]

nn fan mangas--Avsf35 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're accussing this of being an entry for a fan work, you're wrong. The SEED Club comics are produced by the official Gundam SEED fan club in Japan.--HellCat86 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is something produced by a fan club, official club or not, not a fanwork? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
....Because the fan club was created by the official creators of SEED and the related merchandise? By the logic the deletion is proposed under, why not delete entries for such things as Star Wars Insider or any Gundam manga? The SEED Club site is even hosted on the official Japanese Gundam SEED site http://www.gundam-seed.net/seed_club/ --HellCat86 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Official club or not, fans are just fans. Webcomics get exceptions in some cases, but this is not one of those. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N. NeoFreak 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not made by fans, it's made for fans, just like any other show/OVA/film/manga/merchandise. I'm sorry, whoever is backing this doesn't know what they're talking about.--HellCat86 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, want me to show why anyone calling this a fanwork doesn't know what they're talking about?

http://www.gundam-seed.net/seed_club/ The official site, on the same domain name and server as Bandai/Sunrise's official Japanese Gundam site.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4048538896/sr=1-2/qid=1159138359/ref=sr_1_2/503-0610107-2256725?ie=UTF8&s=books The first official collected volume of this comic.
http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN938352 http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN943243 Two examples of SEED Club merchandise, produced by Bandai

If anyone still calls this a fan work, they obviously have no clue--HellCat86 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an offical Gundam manga, just a non-continuity humor one. - CNichols 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Notable.Billy Blythe 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep. This would never have been a problem if such sources had been included in the first place. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, people should know what they're talking about before they back a deletion anyway. A Wiki article shouldn't think for you...--HellCat86 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should a person have to dig their way through foreign language sites to find information about a subject. Notability must be proven by the writer, not the reader. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already noted it was an official spin off and was listed as a stub, highlighting that more info was required. It's not my fault if some people get their facts wrong and somehow read "fan club" as "fan work"--HellCat86 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not prove it. It only claimed to be. You did not include a single source in the original version. Furthermore, it was (and still is) somewhat poorly written. You act as if everyone else should somehow validate your article. That is your job. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How am I? 'Stub' clearly implies the article is a work in progress and some amount of general knowledge on the subject should be expected from users. Wikipedia simply gathers knowledge, it doesn't provide it. You just seem to be in a foul mood because you went with the crowd calling for this being deleted and had to retract your initial vote when it was proven the call for deletion was on flimsy grounds. The merchandise and such I already mentioned is mentioned with the article itself. Don't blame me because the creator of this whole debate jumped the gun. If they believed this item was about a fan work, the smart thing to do would have been to ask on the article's discussion page. If it was the case, THEN a vote for deletion should have followed--HellCat86 22:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume to know my mood. It's annoying. I'm telling you why people tried to delete your article. I retracted my vote as a courtesy because you took the effort to prove your subject notable. I would not have done so otherwise. You do not link to any sources in the article which validate your claims, and you seem to be unaware of WP:V. I suggest you read up. If you continue to make articles as you did this one, expecting others to prove notability for you, then expect more AfDs. Don't start making personal attacks when confronted with your own mistakes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confronted with my own mistakes?...why does there have to be a group of people around here who think they can just throw around links to the site's policies then just look down their nose at the rest of us? I've already explained the state of the article. Terribly sorry it doesn't personally please you. I've started a number of other articles on Wikipedia, many of which I've been able to build up myself along with the help of others and have encountered nothing like the attitudes I'm seeing here. Avsf35 jumped the gun. I contributed what I could to the article and took the neccessary steps to highlight it so others who might know more could further improve it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. I started this article but that doesn't mean I alone am responsible for maintaining it. Don't imply I'm some ignorant slacker when I have a body of contributions that prove otherwise.--HellCat86 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I honestly don't care. I'm tired of responding when you refuse to listen. You know why this was AfD'd. No one jumped the gun. You created an article that did nothing to assert its importance and it got AfD'd. That was your mistake and no one else's. You are responsible for proving the notability of a subject when you start the article, which you failed to do. Previous contributions have no effect on this fact. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- XICOD 06:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Regardless of HellCat86's comments, I'm afraid this does seem to be fan-work, and either way it is non-notable.
It's very common for popular franchises to have fan manga drawn about them. And it's very common for that manga to be published and to show up on Amazon.co.jp. That doesn't make it notable or mean it needs an article. It is simply one common form of fanfiction, which in Japan is given more recognition by the media companies than it is in America.
At best, this might merit a mention in whichever article discusses the fan club as a whole. It certainly does not merit an article of its own.
Remember: just because something exists doesn't mean it needs a dedicated article all of its own. — Haeleth Talk 14:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this manga is produced by Bandai, the company that hold the copyright to Gundam, NOT by fans. Ergo, it is an official Gundam product. The fact that Bandai has chosen its fanclub as a channel of distribution is irrelevant. - CNichols 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, the comics are also distributed in Newtype magazine. Bandai hold any number of official relations with various Japanese magazines; the official SD Musha Gundam mangas, from which they make a long running line of model kits from, are published in Comic BomBom. Both Dengeki Hobby Magazine and Hobby Japan have hosted official content for the various Gundam series, including in recent examples Advance of Zeta and Gundam SEED Astray. Anyone backing the deletion of this article doesn't have their facts straight. I don't see how something produced by the official license owners for a fanclub they started and maintain is somehow fan work. This is just as official as the exclusive webcomic stories StarWars.com publish on their members-only Hyperspace service.--HellCat86 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per hellcats arguments. MarineCorps 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Roninbk _{t c #} 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The manga is produced by the same company, as opposed to Dōjinshi or fan fiction. This fact should probably be further clarified within the article. I highly recommend that everybody here read WP:CHILL, as there have been a lot of unnecessarily heated debate on both sides. --Roninbk _{t c #} 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the original text read Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Club Yonkoma is a spin-off Yonkoma from the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED anime. It is a series of parody comics, usually four panels long. The comics are a joint venture between Bandai/Sunrise's official Gundam SEED fan club and Newtype Japan magazine. I personally felt that pointed out the nature of the series and made it clear that they were official. Any suggestions for improvements, since that doesn't seem to have worked?--HellCat86 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, take a look at the Infobox I just added. If you would be so kind as to further flush out the details listed in the infobox, (I would myself, but I cannot read Japanese,) then that would go a long way towards establishing why this article should be kept --Roninbk _{t c #} 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Manga produced by Bandai are notable for inclusion, this is not fan-work. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 29 September 2006

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

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Miles[edit]

this person won a provincial election of.... not stated. Un-encyclopedic, reads like a newspaper clipping, and gives no useful information. Nekohakase 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would seem he won an election [43] in New Brunswick. A legit stub but might not pass WP:N. NeoFreak 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passes using item #2 under Notability (people) as a provincial legislator. - BalthCat 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Try Google. He won an election *Monday*. Give it some time, eh? Article needs work, not turfing. - BalthCat 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline as a member of a provincial legislature. Ground Zero | t 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phlumx[edit]

This reads like an advertisement, and it only has one sentence. Nekohakase 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability can be established.Bjones 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability.--Peta 03:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. -IceCreamAntisocial 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C Spriting[edit]

Delete. No evidence of this web forum meeting the criteria of WP:WEB. There are only 345 members. Alexa has no traffic data for the webste named. ... discospinster _talk 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Doesn't meet guidelines at WP:WEB, not even close. Equendil Talk 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Struggles to be notable, and seems that it could possibly be either self-promotion or fancruft. The Kinslayer 11:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as copyvio. --Robth^Talk 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Levine[edit]

Sounds like an advertisement, and is highly biased. Nekohakase 20:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, now on copyvio, copied from his legislative biography. As such keep and stubify, member of state legislature per WP:BIO.--Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Public Library[edit]

Non-notable public library. — Joshua Johaneman 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Joshuajohaneman (talk • contribs • count)

Keep. The article has multiple independent references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally a public library in small-town Alaska, with seven staffers, is nn. But the environmental stuff makes it worth keeping. SliceNYC 14:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Leadership International Ministries[edit]

Not notable, about 500 google hits with a variety of name combinations, and basically an advertisement for a very limited interest local religious organization. · XP · 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The lack of a notable internet foot print doesn't, alone, make it NN. Still the article reads like an advertisment and there are no WP:RS or sources at all aside from their own website. NeoFreak 03:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands it is a PR statement/advert Nigel ^(Talk) 12:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-profit organization (i.e. advertising not valid delete reason) that meets inclusion rules.--Tbeatty 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What inclusion rules does it satisfy exactly? · XP · 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)--Tbeatty 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to meet the third party requirements. · XP · 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search for Carson Pue. He's on the board of World Vision Canada. --Tbeatty 05:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes Arrow Leadership International Ministries notable how...? Perhaps you should update the article with what you've found, or else it's due for deletion as it's 5+ days... · XP · 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so this person is president of the group the article covers. However, that does not make the group notable--perhaps this person, however, is. · XP · 05:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person doesn't have an article. I don't think both articles would survive. But since this is the only one a merge and redirect of Carson Pue might be in order.--Tbeatty 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then it needs to be under the Carson Pue name as parent, and he also would need reliable sourcing to stand. This article can be userfied to your space by the closing admin post-deletion if you'd like to recreate it thus. · XP · 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've taken out the advertising. Zamyatin 16:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a pain, but it still doesn't meet the notability qualifiers. · XP · 19:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unverified. No sources provided except their web page. If there is no verifiable information beyond what is on their web page, then this is simply an advertisement. Note, only 23 unique google hits for their full name, and a bunch of those are from Wikipedia clones. Worse even than Don Paul. Derex 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom and Derex--Peephole 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom --Bill.matthews 02:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tjeu[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than a dictionary like entry. Sorry. Paulus 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to nominate this article myself. The article is a dictionary definition of a protologism with no relevant Google hits that I could find. The article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the article's creator removed the PROD tag and added a source which was just the creator's own submission to Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source anyway. --Metropolitan90 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. JASpencer 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Deli Online[edit]

"Digital deli online" gets about 750 ghits outside Wikipedia, of which under thirty are unique. Other things with the name Digital Deli exist and have far more presence on Google. Monograph of Dnyhagen (talk · contribs), who I believe is the site owner (has certainly added many links to the site). Alexa rank is over 1.8 million. No credible evidence of passing WP:WEB. Guy 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show the evidence for your utterly false and intentionally misleading assertions. The Digital Deli Online will always be at something of a disadvantage because it promotes 'Golden Age Radio', as opposed to 'OTR', and because of it's stated pledge to avoid all link spam on it's site. The hits we get are from honest crawls, not link spam. But your specious argument is typical of what I've seen on Wikipedia to date. The very proscriptions they say they wish to enforce against link spam, are what the editors use to decide a page's ranking from Alexa. The Digital Deli Online has never, nor will ever, promote the name 'The Digital Deli Online'. The Golden Age of Radio is the name that it promotes--and always will. Your claims are completely unsubstantiated and unsupported. (As would be expected if the editor is relying upon finding the name 'The Digital Deli Online' to substantiate a presence on Alexa--which is without question the most heavily skewed search engine on the internet.) This is primarily because they'll rank you higher if you pay for it, and they're tied to the DMOZ's limited category structure for their rankings. A fairer comparison would be from Google, which is unquestionably far larger and more reliable than Alexa, uses a far more equitable ranking system, and ranks for content, not link spam hits. Their technology is specifically engineered to catch, isolate and adjust for link spam. Let's have full disclosure here, Guy.

Do a Google Search on Golden Age Radio and note The Digital Deli Online's ranking compared to the other 19 million to 23 million Golden Age Radio sites. If you're going to skew results to suit your argument, please make at least a pretense of acting in good faith. The way Alexa participants get their hits is by offering the Alexa toolbar to their users or subscribers to gain more page hits. Do another Google search on the site's actual URL in the Google Images Tab. And while you're at it, do a fair Alexa search, like this one. I opted out of Alexa when I realized how co-opted it was. But as you'll see, even though Alexa has intentionally misrepresented the time to connect to the site for over 3 years now, they still have to use Google for their crawls, and they're forced to list The Digital Deli Online, as consistently within the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites on the internet (even though I've specifically requested that Alexa and the DMOZ remove The Digital Deli Online from from the Old Time Radio category), and despite every effort on their part to hide the site. They've falsely claimed an 8 second connect time to The Digital Deli Online for over three years now. Pull out a stop watch and time it yourself. But since I don't pay them to stop lying about the site's performance, they continue to misrepresent it. Tell us, Guy. Why did you intentionally overlook the fact that Alexa consistently lists the Digital Deli Online in the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites in the world? Is it because withholding that fact didn't fit your argument, Guy? Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'credible' enough for you, Guy? Let's talk Yahoo, now. How about Yahoo? Look for yourself. And even MSN, which I won't have anything to do with on principle alone, shows this result. Now if you wish to continue to intentionally misrepresent The Digital Deli Online's significance on any of the search engines, I respectfully suggest you go back to the drawing board before the next round of 'swift-boating' the candidate Article. Unsubstantiated heresay only does Wikipedia a disservice. How about some full disclosure here, Guy? How many pages did you have to scroll through to find The Digital Deli Online on any of these Golden Age Radio searches? Three? Five? Ten? How about none? How about page one on every single one of them. Kinda questions your premise, no? But hey, you're the expert, no? Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from others of your observations that you're 'Mr. Alexa Expert', here on Wikipedia. Help us please understand, given your apparent Alexa expertise why you selectively excluded the most glaring fact regarding The Digital Deli Online's significance on Alexa. Given the preponderance of actual facts cited above, and your apparent extensive Alexa expertise, you'll forgive a casual reader's suspicion of why you'd intentionally fail to disclose Alexa placing The Digital Deli Online as the 4th most popular Old Time Radio site on the internet. If it's your contention that Google, the single largest, most respected, and most referenced web presence in the history of technology is a somehow inferior to Alexa then go ahead and try to persuade anyone to believe that. Just as an example of it's own absurdity, Alexa regularly ranks Google between 3 and 5 some days. A teensy bit self-serving? Huh? I agree it's a darn shame that Alexa is so utterly co-opted and skewed but their management put them on the path they've chosen, not me. Do a little soul-searching, then come back when you're prepared to comment in good faith and with numbers you can substantiate, instead of a lot of hearsay or Alexa nonsense. If you wish to denigrate or diminish the significance or importance of an article or site, respect this forum enough to do your homework first next time. Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has hosted a recent smear campaign against The Digital Deli Online lead by two disgruntled editors from spamming sites, that refused to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, yet were permitted to launch a heinous smear campaign against the site, comparing it to Osama Bin Laden. You're an Alexa expert, no, Guy? Help the more uninformed among us to understand how the apparently most hated site in Golden Age Radio is continually placed in the top five most popular Old Time Radio sites in the world. Inquiring minds want to know. I respect your apparent long standing expertise on such matters. Help me, at least, understand this teensy weensy little discrepancy of logic. It truly is a an inconvenient little conundrum isn't it? Care to help us understand the disconnect here? You'd be doing all of us a great service if you could. Please help? Dnyhagen 09:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dnyhagen, please see this guideline for some reasons why you should not create articles on your own endeavours. It doesn't matter if you are one of the bigger fish in a very very small pond, the Alexa rank for your site remains at somewhere over the 1.8 million mark ([44]). I would suggest to you that you may not be the best person to assess the significance of your own website. As to golden age vs. OTR, I have no idea what you are talking abut and care even less. WP:WEB is the applicable notability guideline, and we also strongly discourage essentially autobiographical content. The article itself is largely unverifiable from non-trivial neutral coverage reliable secondary sources anyway. Your position in the search rankings speaks to your skills in promoting your site, not to the signifciance of the site. The significance fo the site is measured by references to it elsewhere. The inbound link count [45] also fails to support assertions of significance. Guy 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been asked and answered elsewhere, but it bears re-addressing. The SINGLE guideline objected to originally was proprietary authorship. As the article was in the process of rehabiliation, suggestions for citations were both submitted, vetted, and approved. The recommended guideline is that an article subject SHOULD not be submitted by it's owner or benefactor. But the article is less about the Digital Deli Online than it is, about Golden Age Radio preservation. Your self proclaimed ignorance of the subject matter speaks for itself, and if 23 million Golden Age Radio sites is a small pond, then you have your opinion and 23 million others have their own. And if 23 million is smaller in significance than 1.8 million I really need to check my math. Somehow that simply doesn't compute. But, hey, if Alexa says their 1.8 million are more significant than Google's 23 million, I guess we'd have to believe that. No? If you feel your opinion is more valuable than the 23 million others, so be it. There's no argument to that logic. That you didn't trouble yourself to verify Alexa's skewing of my daily results also speaks for itself. I stated and cited my specific objections to Alexa's methods. And I'd suggest to you, that since you not only admit, but seem proud of your abject ignorance of the subject matter, you're even less appropriate to assess it's worth. I couldn't give one whit if I ever get a single hit from Wikipedia. It's Golden Age Radio Preservation that the article focuses on. And would have continued to focus on if continued to be developed. Explain the insinuation that I've employed some sort of extraordinary skills that promote the site, rather than letting the site's articles and materials speak for itself, as you apparently didn't take note of, either. Apparently your difficulty is with The Digital Deli Online as the title of the article, as compared to perhaps, Golden Age Radio Preservation Issues, or something of that nature. I take no offense or exception either way. But your snide fish and pond analogy is simply insulting--not to the site, but to Golden Age Radio Preservation and it's measly 23 million internet proponents world wide. So let's recap here: Higher number of Alexa ranking=better article candidate. That's a new one on me. I must have missed that amongst all the other guidelines on Wikipedia. Too late to respond further. I can see where this is heading in any case. Oh, and thanks for all the constructive comments. Very helpful. Dnyhagen 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 million Golden Age Radio Sites? You mean the 18 million hits Google returns for a search on Golden Age Radio?[46] But that's not how you should use Google. The results include all websites that contain all three words, in no particular order or relation to each other. So you get sites about a radio appearance of The Golden Age (a band), of the Danish State Radio Orchestra playing the Golden Age of Light Music. What you are looking for is either a search for "Golden Age Radio"[47] (11000 Google Hits), or "Golden Age of Radio"[48], 147,000 Google Hits. Now remember that these include (many) duplicate hits (hits to the same website or forum), so the actual number of sites that mention the term (favourably, unfavourably, in passing) is still much less. And consider this: no matter if there are thousands or millions of sites about the Golden Age of Radio, only 44 at the most link to your site. And as stated bemow: you are free to write an article on Golden Age Radio Preservation, but that is not what we are discussing here. Fram 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Fraud and Good Faith. Here's what Alexa can or can't do for you if you either opt in to their system or opt out. Intellectual fraud exists on Wikipedia as well. My site was slower then, smaller then, and far more difficult to navigate then. BUT I'd opted into the Alexa tryanny then, till I saw it for it was, and opted out. If you continue to use Alexa as your yardstick, you'll continue to commit intellectual fraud yourselves. This isn't a matter of a level playing ground or not. It's simple intellectual fraud. Wanna know why I dropped off the face of Alexa? I asked to be listed under Golden Age Radio and they refused to even consider the category. Y'all love numbers so much you're transfixed by them. Even if the ones you're looking at are fraudulent. This isn't about being right or wrong. I could be back in their skewed top 20,000 pages any time I choose to--by playing their game and committing intellectual fraud. But I refuse to. It's about intellectual honesty. Dnyhagen 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use Alexa anywhere, so your answer is completely irrelevant. Fram 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I inaccurately cut and pasted the indentation. This was a response to the general argument regarding the integrity--or lack thereof--of Alexa's results. The response should have been indented to the level of the Alexa discussion. I apologize. Dnyhagen 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dnyhagen, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As for the article and its subject: on Google (which you seem to trust), "Digital Deli Online" gets only 43 distinct Google hits[49], and only 26 when you exclude Wikipedia articles and mirrors[50]. The references you give in the article are overstated ("Golden Age Radio's international appeal is underscored by Queensland University of Technology's use of The Digital Deli Online as a reference for Golden Age of Radio Advertising," means that they use it once as a reference for a Coca Cola advert: they don't cite Digital Deli as "this is a good reference site" or so, and "and the Norwegian Historical Radio Society (NHRS) has long cited The Deli ,[13] as a source for Historic Radio Clubs" means that your site is included in a long list of links. "Family First has also consistently recommended The Digital Deli Online as a valuable educational source for Golden Age Radio enthusiasts": consistently recommended meaning that DigitalDeli is one of the thousands of sites they have reviewed favourably, and that that review is still online). Digital Deli Online is not notable enough and fails WP:WEB, and so I endore the nomination. Fram 10:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, yes. Certainly something you'd do well to adhere to. All of us for that matter. Your opinions regarding the weight--or absence thereof--to two of the article's 17 citations thus far are noted. Please cite the actual count of the 'thousands' of Family First Articles on Golden Age Radio that you refer to, unsupported by fact. Your endorsement of deletion is noted, though; for the most part unsupported as to the content of the article. I will repeat, yet again: searches for only 'The Digital Deli Online' are clearly slanted and biased, by design. The site is not notable--nor sets out to be notable--for it's link backs to the name, 'The Digital Deli Online', or for that matter, popularity outside of the Golden Age Radio community. It's notable only to the Golden Age Radio Enthusiast or Preservation Community, as are any number of the tens of thousands of other niche articles on Wikipedia--or frankly any encyclopedia of any kind. Every article has and will have it's own proponents. Clearly those seeking a specific article on Wikipedia won't give a whit about an article backed by 1.8 million other proponents--or the converse. It's the subject matter of the article they'll search for more information. It's that simple. Golden Age Radio Preservation is addressed no where else on Wikipedia. It is addressed quite comprehensively on The Digital Deli Online and the other 14 citations the article has assembled thus far; as apparently those measly 23 million other Golden Age Radio proponents--on the internet at least--seem to feel, anyway. The Golden Age of Radio, and it's legacy are of great value and importance to that tiny--apparently insignificant to two of you thus far anyway--niche of 23 million proponents who would beg to differ with both of you. Perhaps Wikipedia has outgrown the need to cater to 23 million proponents of The Golden Age Radio. Pretty successful to be sure, to simply snub an interest group of that size. But those 23 million can certainly continue to look elsewhere. If Wikipedia refuses to permit such an article, they'll find what they're seeking about Golden Age Radio preservation elsewhere, anyway. That's the long and short of it. I've made my case, and begun the article with just such material. If the aim here is simply to naysay, snipe, or detract rather than be constructive, it's less a reflection on Golden Age Radio Preservation than on Wikipedia. Far be it from me to either promote or detract from Alexa's inestimable value in assessing an article's worth on Wikipedia. That remains for consensus to decide. Suggestion for future Wikipedia Guidelines: If Alexa's imprimatur in promoting--or detracting--from an article's worth is so key, why not add it as a guideline and be done with it? I'll take my chances with the 23 million Golden Age Radio proponents any day. But I do thank you for your highly constructive comments. Dnyhagen 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that I have not been civil to you, please point out where, as I don't see where I have done so. Otherwise, please don't retaliate a friendly reminder by accusing me of doing the same. If you want examples of where you have been uncivil and not assuming good faith on this page, I can start with your first line, "intentionally misleading assertions". Having said that: you yourself say that the site is not notable outside its community, but apparently the community of Golden Age of Radio has very few websites, as there are very few links to your website from inside the community either. This AfD is not about Golden Age of Radio, which is not up for deletion. Saying that "Wikipedia has outgrown the need to cater to 23 million proponents of the Golden Age Radio" is not supported by the facts, and I sincerely doubt those 23 million peope would all see an article on Digital Deli Online as necessary here. Golden Age Radio Preservation is adressed in the main Old-time radio article, and for all I care a separate, neutral article concerning the Preservation can be made. This, however, is an article about one website, not about that Preservation. If that was your intention, then the article is named completely wrong, and has too limited contents (it shouldn't be about your website). Finally, an answer to a few more specific remarks you make: Of your seventeen sources, I can't retrieve the third one, none of the first ten otherwise even mentions Digital Deli, just like the 16th and 17th; the 11th and 13th have the site in a list of links, the 12th uses your site as a aource for a quote about the Coca Cola formula, so all we are left with are the 14th and 15th reference. Two references, which both come out of the 40 or so Google found. As for the actual count of the 'thousands' of articles on Family First: obviously they are not about Golden Age Radio, they are about all kinds of stuff, they are to be more precise about websites suggested by readers of the website. I did not say or imply that they reviewed thousands of websites on Golden Age Radio, my actual quote was "consistently recommended meaning that DigitalDeli is one of the thousands of sites they have reviewed favourably," and if I counted correctly, there are 3583 sites reviewed. This is all highly irrelevant to the main issue though, that your website is not notable enough for inclusion here, but I thought it would be better if your other remarks were answered as well. Fram 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a sense I had expected this article to be here sooner and when I first saw it felt that it did deserve deletion review however other editors were involved in it. I have reflected for a while on this before voting as I have been involved on the edges of some related discussion. However, with reflection, I feel that this is the correct vote. I do not see the article as being truly notable and I believe there is at least an element of vanity here. The author has been & is extremely protective of his article and his position - in a sense I understand this but it is my belief that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh please, NigelR. Expected, but not instigated? Let me help this along. Delete it. Please. Contrary to your assertion, Fram, there is almost nothing of value in the existing 'Old Time Radio' Article as regards the preservation of Golden Age Radio. Nor, given the underlying forces and parties at work on it, will there likely ever be, since people that feel as I do about it, tend to resent the imprimatur of 'Old Time Radio' or even worse, 'OTR', onto Golden Age Radio Preservation issues. Heck, I can't even get my own site removed from the Old Time Radio category on Alexa, despite three years of repeated attempts. Sadly, those two factions appear to be at cross purposes with each other--the one faction wanting to continue to profit from it, and the other wishing to promote an urgent message to preserve even more of it. Even worse, it's an unwitting antibiosis; the preservation faction passionately racing against time, to churn out even more preserved recordings, and the commercial OTR faction even more passionately downsampling all of them so as to pack more of them onto a CD for sale for 3 bucks a pop. Indeed, the early decision to lump Golden Age Radio into 'OTR' was apparently made by the same commercial factions of 'OTR' sites with an eye to future exploitation of the articles and the tentacles of Program articles stemming from it--a literal orgy of self-promotion, commercial podcasting, and link backs. A real treasure trove indeed. And apparently little of it, policed or enforced till a naeive newcomer upset the apple cart. That's regrettable, but not entirely surprising in the least. I'll get an article on Golden Age Radio Preservation into Wikipedia in time, one way or the other. I certainly don't need to do it on the back of The Digital Deli Online, and god knows I'll never subject the site again to such naked abuse, insinuations, and unsupported attacks. The 'vanity' aspects of the article were admittedly regrettable, but the initial insistence of the editors to first comment on it, was directed principally toward supporting the website's notability, not the notability of the Golden Age Radio Preservation effort that serves as its only raison de etre. Nor was it indicated anywhere, by anyone prior to that, that the measure of a site's notability stems, as a prerequisite, from it's Alexa ranking. If that's truly the case, from what I've seen thus far on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of similar internet site-related articles that will certainly never rise to that measurement, as well as conversely, hundreds of potentially valuable internet site articles, encyclopedic in nature, that will never grace the pages of Wikipedia. More's the pity. Frankly, I find that an absurdly narrow prerequisite for notability, if not a disservice to the ultimate goals of Wikipedia in it's effort to become the world's most accessible online encylcopedia. To my perhaps naieve way of thinking, notability stems from an entity's uniqueness of content, promotion of a noble effort, encyclopedic information value to a noteworthy niche or broader interests, or perhaps even to purpose alone. In retrospect I regret misintrepreting the means by which editors were seeking notability from the website, versus the message. I honestly do, but the positive comments I was receiving along the way from other Wikipedia editors left me with the mistaken impression that I was pointing the article in the right direction. I'm nothing if not passionate about this effort, and I fear that passion served more to detract from the message, than contribute to it. All in all, a regrettable, misdirected first outcome. Do what y'all need to with the article. The process of learning the ropes, coding, citing, structure, guidelines, and politics of Wikipedia can only serve to help my next such effort. Lots of lessons learned--some outrageously negative, some very positive. Lest Guy conclude from this any self-serving perception of further justification for his unwarranted insinuations that I either undertook an arbitrary wholesale deletion of spam links, or, since he apparently wants it both ways, that I failed to delete as many as his proudly self-avowed ignorance of the subject led him to believe I should have deleted, I'll reiterate yet again, and for the final time; every single spam link I did--or didn't--remove was based on an informed rationale, from long-standing experience and knowledge of the subject matter. No more, certainly no less, and unequivocally without prejudice, pro or con. Never at anytime did I permit my own passions sway my own deliberation processes. Not once. That dog doesn't hunt. Put it out of its misery. Though I doubt this will cease Guy's continued insinuations, I for one am finished rising to the bait. Period. Dnyhagen 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 nn, probable advert. Luna Santin 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carsoup[edit]

Fails WP:WEB - Perhaps big in Minnesota but not big on a broader scale - Delete. BlueValour 21:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually its big in North Dakota also, adverts plague tv and before movies at the theater. However looking at WP:WEB and doing some googling looks like it does not qualify for an article ... yet. I'm not sure AutoTrader.com qualifies either though. Quigabyte 04:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel .Bryant 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LView[edit]

This piece of software does not appear to be especially notable Wjousts 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. LView and LViewPro were the top graphics display/edit programs for Windows back in the 90s. They were eclipsed by Irfanview (and Paint Shop Pro, but that's more of an editor). It's still the #3 download of all time in the category. [51] --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LView was one of the big popular graphics viewers in the Win3.1x era. I remember several glowing computer mag mentions and like... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and Wwwwolf. Meets guidelines of WP:SOFTWARE, if those criteria are considered. Agent 86 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- MarcoTolo 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOFTWARE -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by Dhartung and Wwwwolf --Careax 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This software application is notable, and meets the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. RFerreira 23:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as in keep seperate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lee Rose[edit]

Procedural note: This AfD was originally listed on September 20, and closed out of process by a non-admin on September 24 as, in effect, a "keep with further merger discussion to continue on the article's talk page." [52] While the discussion, as it currently stands, makes it a near certainty that this AfD will be closed as a keep or merge to lonelygirl15, the improper closure effectively nullified all the merge votes in this debate and turned them into keep votes. As such, I'm relisting this AfD to resume debate and allow for an admin to make the final decision at whatever time he or she feels is appropriate. As this is a procedural relisting, I have no further comment beyond what I have already posted below. --Aaron 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are unofficially discussing deletion of this article at Talk:lonelygirl15 and the possibility of merging at Talk:Jessica Lee Rose. This nomination is intended to end the irrelevant meta-arguments about whether it should be sent to AfD by invoking the official process. (Note: if all editors unofficially discussing this were clearly independent editors, WP:SNOWBALL might apply. However, since most are IP addresses that can't be uniquely identified, the outcome is not so certain.) As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain from the discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge to lonelygirl15. No notability outside of the lonelygirl15 lark. Maybe CAA can do something with her, maybe not. But no basis for separate article now. Bwithh 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Jessica Lee Rose is the lead actress in a video series that has millions of viewers, not to mention a gigantic amount of media attention (Google news count for Jessica Rose or Jessica Lee Rose is a total of over 400 articles [53] [54]). Due to lonelygirl15, she has become a big star. She's done numerous interviews now and has even been on Jay Leno. There's a strange argument that lonelygirl15 was the only notable thing she's done so far and therefore shouldn't have a page. That makes no sense. Just because an actor gains notoriety for their leading role in any single movie or TV show means they shouldn't have an article about them? Under this argument, all Big Brother (every country version) and Survivor contestants pages would be deleted. Jessica Lee Rose is arguably more well known then most of those reality show contestants with articles. That people want to delete a page about this extremely notable actress is just nonsense. She's a star now. Marriedtofilm 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Marriedtofilm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
(click contribs link. Account has been active since Feb. 06. Many other topic contributions before lonelygirl15 existed. This is a personal attack without research in facts.) Marriedtofilm 22:24, September 20, 2006
Note to closing admin: Marriedtofilm joined on February 19, made 13 edits that day (all but three to one article), and left. He returned four months later on June 12, made four edits in the span of 36 hours or so, and left. He then returned three months after that, on September 12, and has made several dozen edits since then, all but two of which are to this article or to discussions directly related to this article. [55] I leave it to the closing admin to determine how closely this pattern of activity conforms to the definition of an SPA. --Aaron 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed description of the numerous contributions before being active in this topic and not being SPA. And thanks for jumping to the conclusion that I'm a male. Oh, and you forgot to mention that I created two articles in February. So much for you acusatiion of "Single purpose account." Now stop the personal attacks and stick to the subject. Marriedtofilm 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Marriedtofilm edit 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Correct Google News stats as of 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC) for "Jessica Lee Rose" are 18 unique of 166 hits total. For "Jessica Rose" (which gets false positives as well), they are 76 unique of 319. Adding "lonelygirl15" to the last search to eliminate false positives gives 66 unique of 306. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is false. It's more than 18. Look here [56] TonyLeigh 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That link doesn't use double-quotes in the search and so gets hits for Axel Rose, Jessica Simpson, and other non-"Jessica (Lee) Rose" news stories. My numbers are correct. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Saxifrage, my links do have the double quotes. Marriedtofilm 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        By "that link" I was answering TonyLeigh directly. Their link lacks double quotes. As for your own numbers, that total includes repeats. Unique Google hits are an important factor for editors who care about the Google test. Unique hits for "Jessica Rose" lonelygirl15 or "Jessica Lee Rose" total 82. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is saying a certain article is not published in more than one place. Like with alot of google news articles, the google repeats are usually articles published in different newspapers or other news services, but from the same source. For instance, if AP writes a story, frequently many newspapers will publish the same story because the editor feels it's newsworthy for their local market and/or reader base. A newspaper editor in Seattle might choose to publish an LA Times article (provided they have a contract with said paper), then that would appear as 2 articles. That over 400 times editors choose to publish an article on Jessica Lee Rose, whether it was their own original material or not, shows she has a huge amount of media attention that can't be denied.Marriedtofilm 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nice, but I'm not arguing anything in particular. I'm just providing the numbers that editors tend to ask for during AfDs. People can do with them as they will. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The numbers for Jessica Lee Rose are much higher than your claims, anyone can see that by looking at the pages and the descriptions of what those pages contain, the numbers you quoted are way off! 205.188.116.11 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You'll have to be more specific about what "pages" you're talking about. I'm merely reporting the numbers Google returns on the searches I described. I'm not saying those number are low or high, so I don't understand why you think you need to "defend" against them. Are you saying that you think the numbers Google is reporting are too low? — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Lonelygirl15 is the name of the ficitional character/series of videos she has been in. These videos are notable enough for mention so the star of them should also be. There are many one hit wonder pop stars who have articles (and big brother contestants too) and this is no diffrent. What about Howard Brown who is only notable for bank commericals in the UK (very popular ones though) who has his own article? This page should not be deleted. TonyLeigh 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is going to be an article that grows, just like the orginal lonelygirl15 article. It will allow for some of the info to be stashed elsewhere. basically, it will keep the lg15 artcile about that, and the info about the actress seperate. The orginal arguments about lonelygirl15 in the AfD's and the undelete there are all going to be made again. I think the same outcome is going to occur. Dave 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- Merge with lonelygirl15. It just doesn't deserve it's own page at this time. Criptofcorbin 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lonelygirl15. Her only claim to fame is a direct connection to the lonelygirl15 series. Outside of her involvement in it, which is extensively covered in its own article, there's nothing of note to say about her. WarpstarRider 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's notable enough by now, and her biographical info does not belong on the Lonelygirl article. If Wikipedia is expansive enough to include articles on reality show rejects and extremely minor "celebrities" like Libby Hoeller and Ellen Feiss, then surely there's room for an actress who has been watched by millions, appeared on Jay Leno, and will almost certainly be starring in more roles in the future. Serpent-A 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep arguably notable enough as lonelygirl, but might as well make both. FrozenPurpleCube 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to lonelygirl15 per Bwithh. Subject is the very definition of nn except for this one incident that will be forgotten within weeks. --Aaron 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge as per Aaron above. Badbilltucker 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lonelygirl. If she ever does anything else it will be easy to recreate an article for her.Jlittlet 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lonelygirl15. This is a very dubious spin-off. JLR and LG15 are completely synonymous, and no separate entries are warranted at this point. Comment: When I voted eventually to keep LG15, I never imagined that that would turn out to be the trashy article which we see today. It is now completely crufty, filled with all sorts of unreliable rubbish, outright speculation and references to blog entries which respectable Wiki editors abiding by guidelines habitually ignore. Now it turns out that LG15 was but an elaborate hoax which has fooled many. Ohconfucius 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO for actors. --Tim1988 ^talk 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely your POV. It states "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". Jessica Lee Rose is the main actress is a online soap opera that is a Internet phenomenon. 205.188.116.11 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - People are entitled to their point of view, especially because the point of an AfD is to solicit opinions. Also note that editors from anonymous IP addresses tend to stay uncounted by the administrator in charge of tallying the opinions, not least because they tend not to have the best grasp of the real meaning of the policies they quote. You'll have better luck if you establish a reputation as a good editor, and if you demonstrate respect for your fellows. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is policy POV? --Tim1988 ^talk 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Also, noone who wants this page deleted has explained why they aren't also requesting deltions of pages for one hit wonder pop stars. Carl Douglas for example. Perhaps because it weakens there already weak arguments. 205.188.116.11 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't edit on this website, but frequently reference it, like I did when seeking information on this actor and that is my perspective so value my opinion accordingly. Deleting or merging the biography on this person doesn't seem consistent with the rest of this website. I see there are many one-hit wonders and actors who only starred in one thing who have biographies here. This actor seems to be singled out for arbitrary reasons. 206.170.104.47 20: 54 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. She is an actress seperate from the videos she's in. Her Lonelygirl15 project is Wikipedia's 9th most visited article, 8th if you don't consider the main page an article. -- Zanimum 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I may not agree with the videos and it's intended secrecy, but if we decide to merge this article with LonelyGirl15, we might as well merge all of the other articles regarding actors and actresses who are only known for one role. She has had roles in other movies besides LonelyGirl15. People seems to forget that "lonelygirl15" is mearly the title of the vlogs she is in, and she plays the role of "Bree", the lead role in them. --Raderick 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She isn't just Lonelygirl15, she's a young actress. She's mentioned in dozens of newspapers, appearead on The Tonight Show, and has had a minor career as a make-up artist as well. There are thousands of actors on Wikipedia who have less prominence than JLR who simply aren't flagged for deletion for the ironic reason that nobody is paying as much attention to them as they are to her, along with a sense that just because her claim to fame hasn't been developed by a major Hollywood studio it's somehow less credible than someone who appeared in three episodes of The O.C. - dharmabum 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, per note at top of debate, Aaron 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actress is separate from her role. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lonelygirl15 She has not done anything notable other than those YouTube videos(which are ONLY notable because she got on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno", otherwise I would say delete both. TJ Spyke 23:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Before Jessica Lee Rose's appearance on The Tonight Show on the evening of September 15, there were already 280 Google news article listings for "Jessica Rose" and 151 for "Jessica Lee Rose" for a total of 431 (currently, the total is 494). These results were with the exact phrases in quotes and non-unique. [57] [58] Sorry, I don't know how to bring up unique results which will reduce the total numbers, probably to around 60 (as of September 20, per Saxifrage above, it was 82). But the point is she was already notable before her Tonight Show appearance. Marriedtofilm 01:27, September 25, 2006
I consider someone notable if [s]he has over 10,000 hits at Google. I guess others have a different "Google Test" requirement, but I tend to think nobody considers someone notable for having 500 hits at Google. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, main Google web hits or Google News hits. I put the stats for the latter (for "Jessica Lee Rose", the Google web hits are over 30,000 [59]). But anyway, I'll refer you to the child actress Abigail Breslin who was one of the stars of the film Little Miss Sunshine. She has become very notable in the last couple of months thanks to her performance in that film and justifiably has an article here (she even had a page before most people ever heard of her). Her total Google News non-unique article hits are 248 [60]. I agree that the "Google Test" can be relative. - Marriedtofilm 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per TJ. Notability of the person is through her "character", not her "persona". -- ReyBrujo 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Peta 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One or the other but not both. --Tbeatty 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject has received mass media press coverage and has made several television appearances, including the Jay Leno talk show. To seperate fact from fiction we should retain this article. Yamaguchi先生 03:35, 25 September 2006
Keep both the character and the actor should remain seperate. ALKIVAR™ 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep To both, if in question. She's now a notable actress, and the lonelygirl thing is amazingly beyond notable. · XP · 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please like said above she is notable and over 400 articles on google news right now about her do not merge Yuckfoo 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an actress, a person; the article on the character/series is naturally separate. I might agree with merging if there was absolutely nothing to say about her beyond the character/series itself, but I don't believe that's true. Everyking 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuy (talk • contribs)
Keep as per dharmabum and Zanimum. Robert Brockway 07:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are we going to start merging actor's articles into their most well-known roles? -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
Keep. She qualifies as notable, and her role is verifiable, and even, in a way, notorious. A worthy freestanding article. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious? Nobody will remember this girl in a year's time. I didn't even know who she was until the article got nominated for deletion. Just another random Internet fad. Merge to her character - sad enough that one article need be here, but she has no notability as a person, just as a character. GassyGuy 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring your own views of the future to the table. Hardly anyone goes around saying everyday of their lifes listening to Carl Douglas. If you really believe what you say (and I'm not saying you don't) then ask for a removal of his page as this one is just as notable. 205.188.116.11 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that a widely-known hit song that's been around for over 30 years is equivalent to a handful of internet videos that began a few months ago? That's just silly, along with all the arguments trying to compare this with people who have starred in feature films and television shows that are far more recognizable. WarpstarRider 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Douglas is ONLY known widely for Kung Fu Fighting. That's it. His one claim to notability and fame in the entertainment world at large. He has done nothing else anywhere close the that level. So the point is if Jessica Lee Rose's page should redirect to Lonelygirl15, because that's is "the only notable thing she has done" (which is the argument for deleting her page in the first place) then Carl Douglas should redirect to the one song that has given him any notability. There is no difference in the matter. The song may have been around 30 years, so what? The man has had nothing else come close in three decades. So for you to suggest just because his one big success was many, many years ago somehow makes him more worthy of a page than Jessica Lee Rose because her one notable credit (so far) happened this year is what is what is silly. She's also got much more chance of doing something else more notable than Carl Douglas, Robin Beck et all because it's a fact those people have failed again and again to have another success over many years of failed attempts to recapture their one moment in the limelight, what the future holds for Jessica Rose is still yet unknown. 64.12.116.71 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, those people are only "far more recognizable " to people who have seen and enjoyed their works, to the rest of us they are just as recognizable than Jessica Rose, or less so. 64.12.116.71 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The idea that there should be a page because "she might do something more notable" in the future is not a valid argument for having a page now. And once again, you can not compare a person who performed a #1 hit song to a person who has only appeared in a bunch of internet videos. There are actual guidelines that support articles for people like Carl Douglas. Where the guidelines stand regarding "internet actresses" with no other credentials are less clear. Until she actually does something else, she shouldn't have an article. If she does do something notable in the future to separate herself from lonelygirl15, an article can be created at that time. WarpstarRider 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)\*[reply]

I never said Wikipedia is a Crystal Ball, I said quite the opposite. However, you CAN compare someone who has starred in an online Internet show that has been seen by millions to a person who has had one major hit single. They both have had the limelight for one thing and one claim to fame. There is no difference between Carl Douglas and Jessica Rose other than one is a one shot singer and the other a one shot actress, therefore she is just as worthy of a page as he. If the wiki guidelines somehow view that as different then that is crazy. If the guidelines were than black and white surely this VFD wouldn't even be here, the page simply wouldn't have existed (or at least just simply and quickly been deleted) 64.12.116.71 11:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example of Carl Doulgas is flawed. Douglas's major claim to fame is "Kung Fu Fighting," but it is not his only one. His song "Dance the Kung Fu" was a top ten hit on Billboard's R&B chart. That too is pretty notable; hence, I won't be nominating Douglas for deletion. Robin Beck had a very prolific career as a background vocalist on popular hits before her success with "The First Time," which gives her notability outside of her song. If Jessica Rose ever does something comparable, this article can be recreated... but she hasn't yet. GassyGuy 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aster Placed 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Keeping separately makes no sense at this time. She is only notable in the context of exactly one role. If she ever becomes involved in others we can always we recreate it. JoshuaZ 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As I said before: consider Danny Lloyd. Pablosecca 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that there are quite a number of comments on whether to merge at Talk:Jessica Lee Rose, and they favor keeping the articles separate by a sizable margin. It's unclear to me whether all of those users also voted here. rhaas 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cutting off that IP-heavy discussion and making it official is the whole point of my nominating the article. They don't count unless they voice their opinion here. This cuts out transient IP editors who have no interest in or understanding of Wikipedia as a project. Besides, counting them would be unprecedented in the extreme and would obviate the need for processes like AfD. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seperate even though this discussion really doesn't belong on Articles for deletion. RFerreira 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just FYI, the rationale is that an article that is "merged" ceases to exist—the information is kept, but the article gets deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge no notability outside of her lonelygirl15 role. For all of those who are bringing up one-shot film and television shows, those are far more notable as they are notable productions funded and marketed a major studio. Hbdragon88 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this any different? The LG15 videos's filmmakers were supported by Creative Artists Agency, the same group that supports Tom Cruise and many other popular actors and actresses. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-lonelygir13sep13,0,347594.story?coll=la-home-headlines --Raderick 09:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate per several folks above. --Myles Long 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Death Uno[edit]

Wikpedia is not a game guide but this is a non-notable game in any case. Delete. BlueValour 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable game mod since the original PC version was released in the mid-1990s. Reviewed by leading game site. MikeWazowski 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with that brief review, I'm not seeing the notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 catherine yronwode. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Mojo[edit]

Promotional page with linkfarm; fails WP:WEB. Part of a walled garden by occultists. Leibniz 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to catherine yronwode, this is a vanity press/store for her and her friends. The primary WLH results are from descriptions of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to catherine yronwode, per Dhartung. An extra sentence or two should be sufficient, given that it's already mentioned there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Southaven (Sword of Truth). Deathphoenix ʕ 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innkeeper Bill[edit]

Fails:WP:N and WP:FICT. Fancruft. An article about a very minor fictional character in the Sword of Truth series; Not notable enough to warrant his own page. The article is fluffed with other NN, non-sequiter info to pad it out and it's fancruft that fails the relavent criteria as laid out in WP:FICT. NeoFreak 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This character only appears once in the series - he doesn't even really merit an entry in a list of minor characters. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Southaven (Sword of Truth), or create a master list of minor characters and merge it there instead. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Southaven (Sword of Truth). Parts of this article could be used to create a brief section within said article (named Bill's Inn or somesuch) and would help create a better article on Southaven. - Runch 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll point out that Southaven isn't a particularly important location either - most of the details which are in that article now are culled directly from the book. Unless the more recent installments (which I haven't read) feature Southaven prominently, I'm pretty sure the novels only pass through Southaven a couple of times in the entire series; there really isn't a lot to say about it, besides that the party passes through it a couple of times. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language films[edit]

This list would be too long and probably take too much time to put in every single english title. Just isn't needed. Thorpe | talk 21:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can see an argument for "list of Mongolian-language films", for example, but the scope of this list is just going to be massive and thus would make more sense as a series of smaller lists or categories or something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too large to have any extra information, and therefore is redundant to Category:English-language films. TimBentley (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's been rendered redundant through Category:English-language films. Supernumerary 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too broad to be useful and already covered by the category (and no, I do not feel such a list serves any useful purpose as far as identifying articles to be written, which is a rationale I sometimes see attached to such lists). 23skidoo 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you ever do see such rationale please remember to tell the editor using it that the correct place for redlink todo lists is a talk page, user space, or a WikiProject. Say no to red link farms in main space kids! :) --kingboyk 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes of Pakistani Claims and admissions of propaganda[edit]

Delete. This isn't really an article, it's just a collection of long quotes copied from other webpages. I would say that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" but I'm not entirely sure what the author is trying to say. It seems to be anti-Pakistan. Or maybe it's against India. I think? ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am also adding Quotes of Pakistani Claims to this AfD, as the text is exactly the same. ... discospinster _talk 22:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it feels like Original Research to me, since there's not enough context to explain what's really going on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like some kind of fork from Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. --Metropolitan90 23:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who 'created' this. actually this was part of th emain article at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. This made the main article bulky and unweildy. Instead of editing it out, I hived it off into a seperate piece. doesnt make any sense as is. jaiiaf 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. JASpencer 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete it because, this article will provide information that Pakistan has indeed indulged in Propoganda and the will keep the reality. This is a very valuable article, since this is by Pakistani's admitting that what has been written in certain books and websites are indeed propoganda and not the truth. Also instead of deleting this article, it must be expanded to contain the truth and correct wrong things somewhere else. Chanakyathegreat 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mud People. (thanks, Runch!) Luna Santin 07:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nissel[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:FICT. A NN minor fictional character from the Sword of Truth series that doesn't rate her own article. NeoFreak 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird Man -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mud People then Redirect. Redirects are always a good option. - Runch 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I merged the article into Mud People. - Runch 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour pressure of water[edit]

It's just a list of the vapor pressure of water at different temperatures. It might be possible to merge it somewhere, but I doubt it would be useful. TimBentley (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This kind of information is useful in scientific and engineering fields. It should be kept on a Wikimedia Foundation project. So the question is, is Wikipedia the right project, or should it go on another? Fg2 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while both wikibooks and wikiversity have chemistry and physics materials (so it might be transwikied), this actually strikes me as encyclopedic. It could use some text added to explain what this all means though (I haven't the faintest idea what the vapor pressure of a liquid might refer to). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Vapor pressure might provide some context for those considering this AfD. No opinion yet. Michael Kinyon 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I doubt a sane engineer would rely on numbers that could be changed by anyone and come from an unknown source. An engineering overview with links to futher information could be useful. Pavel Vozenilek 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry to burst your bubble, Pavel, but real-life engineering is often done on the basis of post-it notes and company rumours. Wikipedia tables are above average in credibility. Wikipedia already has lots of data tables, e.g. List of countries by birth rate, and there is no simple reliable equation that can produce these numbers.--Yannick 23:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films that have been considered the greatest ever[edit]

This is listcruft, the title itself is POV, and the article is so inherently biased as to irreparably violate NPOV. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No article with a title that POV can be salvaged under any circumstances. --Aaron 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs to be listed on the page.--Prosfilaes 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The title is not POV; it's not POV to list films that have been considered the greatest ever by authorative sources. It's important to provide context about what's considered good and bad films in an encyclopedia.--Prosfilaes 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This should be kept open until 25 September 2006, the AFD notice was not properly posted at the time. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list that solicits what others have designated as "best ever" isn't POV and is useful to readers who want to know but don't want to wade through adverts on the one hand or niche film elites on the other.Lethiere 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is important and has been the topic of numerous discussions. Writing about opinions from reliable sources doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Mitaphane _talk 09:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed partial solution to POV issues - if we can rename this to something that doesn't use the weasel and peacock terms "considered" and "greatest", we would be in better shape, and at least the title would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title could perhaps be changed, but the content appears a sensible collection of various metrics for ranking films. Espresso Addict 10:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I think (as I recently mentioned on the article's talk page) that box office information should be removed and/or given its own page (Movies with the Highest Box Office Receipts or something like that). I disagree that "considered" and "greatest" are weasel words in the context of a consensus of movie critics or major award-giving organizations. --Happylobster 14:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. chocolateboy 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like these issues have been discussed in great length on the talk and AfD pages of the other "XXX considered the greatest/Worst ever" articles. All these lists are heavily edited and patrolled and are gradually becoming fairly good articles. -Kubigula (ave) 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks extensively referenced and sourced to me, so does not violate NPOV or WP:CITE in my opinion. I don't see anything wrong with the title, either though if someone thinks they can come up with a better one, knock yourself out. 23skidoo 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title isn't POV, it refers to lists that have already been made. This article isn't saying what we, the Wikipedians, think are the best movies ever, it's listing movies that critics and other people outside of Wikipedia have considered among the best ever. I hardly see how this is a point of contention. --Spartacusprime 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as historical surveys and references are properly cited, I see no reason to delete the article. We may want to change the title of the article to something that sounds less POV-ish, though. — Loadmaster 19:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a useful quality article. The title is carefully worded; it's hard to see how it could be improved. Rwxrwxrwx 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been an exhaustive effort -- and, I think, successful -- to give an NPOV approach to an inherently POV subject, by approaching it from every possible angle. If I remember right, there was a previous attempt to delete this article, and that attempt was also unsuccessful. --Modemac 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Wikipedia is so TIGHT. Personally, I could list 1000 "greatest" movies, but please consider this list is not for "the guided," but rather for those needed guidance. So many PEOPLE, new to English, new to movies, young people, curious people, and others COULD be greatly helped by it. Please no self-centered replies about the rules...lolart 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)AAAAA[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mud People. - Bobet 11:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Man[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:FICT. A very minor character that doesn't rate his own page. Article is filled out with NN fluff to flesh out the lack of relavent info. NeoFreak 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mud People. Alternately, someone familiar with the material (i.e. not me) could create a page of minor characters from the book and merge this into that. Examples of similar pages: Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Minor characters in Bloom County, List of minor characters in the Matrix series, etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mud People then Delete per above. (Normally, I'd say redirect, but the title "Bird Man" is too ambiguous). - Runch 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to preserve the GFDL chain, a merge should always include a redirect. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I merged the article into Mud People. - Runch 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aprove: i aprove of the merge into Mud People, but i think that there needs to be a link to the article from the minor characters page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickjsanford (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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morag Paskins[edit]

notability not established. Nekohakase 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD:A7. Michael Greiner 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mud People. Luna Santin 06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toffalar[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:FICT. A very minor character in the Sword of Truth series that is not notable enough to warrant his own article. NeoFreak 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird Man. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mud People then Redirect. - Runch 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I merged the article into Mud People. - Runch 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer Smith (1932-2003)[edit]

Virtually 100% nonsense as far as I can tell. I can quite categorically state that no person of this name ever played for Dundee United or Scotland. I can't turn up any info relating to the alleged Mr Smith at Celtic or Shamrock Rovers either. And this is without mentioning some of the other tremendous flights of fancy included! Jellyman 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom pending any sources coming to light on WP:N and WP:RS. Couldn't find any sources to back the stub, might be a joke. NeoFreak 22:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Catchpole 06:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 17:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 17:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Qwghlm 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I smell a hoax. King fish erswift 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly untrue. Mattythewhite 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can confirm he never played for Shamrock ROvers Dodge 19:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supporting delete, article is clearly a hoax Djln--Djln 23:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. CanbekEsen 17:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~ Keep, even after discounting votes from new users and potential sockpuppets. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, it's not worth my time to argue with someone about whether this is no consensus or keep. The net result is the same anyway. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trucks[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete/Merge I suggest trimming and merging any relevant info on this article to the Rutgers University page (in particular,the Student Life section). The article was deleted on March 4, 2006 in the following afd:

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks

But was recreated 4 days later on March 8, 2006. The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines which states that a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources. whilst there only seems to exist one real source of nobility for this article (that being the sandwich award from Maxim magazine in 2004 for the Fat Darrel sandwich along with coverage of that award). Jersey Devil 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Food truck. "Grease trucks" are food trucks at a single university campus. --Metropolitan90 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth as recreation of deleted material. --Aaron 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The material may have been deleted for bad reasons. The deletion itself is being called into question here, so I find this argument invalid. MJKazin 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment, I never attended Rutgers University, but I did grow up in New Jersey, and I can tell you that not only have I heard of the Grease Trucks, but I have probably talked about them at least 20 times in my life. This is one of those things that everyone from NJ knows about. I wonder if R U Hungry is still around.... --Descendall 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to comment, I'm not sure if that makes it noteable[reply]

Comment yes, I am from Jersey and am currently a Rutgers University student. I don't understand why 1-3 paragraphs in the "Student life" section of the Rutgers University article isn't a reasonable solution to this. Anyway, I just wanted to find a reasonable consensus on this.--Jersey Devil 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am a Rutgers student as well as an experienced Wikipedia editor, people have traveled across the state and from other states to eat here. It is as notable as Chicken and Rice and has been cited in numerous magazines. Its notability equals that of Rutger's NonProductive. How is winning Maxim magazine sandwich of the year not notable? Also the former nomination was hardly an acceptable nomination. The nominator didn't leave a comment nor signature. On top of that there were only 4 responses. Sources for notability: [61], [62], [63], [64].(proved "a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources.") Valoem ^talk 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't access the third article. Regardless, I'm inclined to agree on notability criteria due to the others. MJKazin 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge~~ I am a Rutgers alumni and life-long NJ resident. I've met more than a few people from NJ and beyond who when told I went to Rutgers would promptly ask about the "Grease Trucks". I have rarely met anyone from New Jersey who hasn't at least heard of them, and many have been there at least once. The Grease trucks are noted in various sources, most famously in Maxim, and are a well-known part of the Rutgers University social environment. At the very least they deserve mention on the Rutgers University wiki page, though it is probably too complex to detail in a small space. Needs its own entry. --Daveyboy37 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) changed to KEEP and clarified position[reply]
Comment I am against a merge since the Grease Trucks have grown beyond just Rutgers culture. Students have traveled from others colleges, including community colleges to have a sandwich I am a primary witness to such events. As a free encyclopedia that require a community to expand, democratic methods can be taken even if an article has been deleted (which I did not know since I created this article from a redirect, an improper one might I add, since Food trucks are not called Grease trucks. The name is unique to these Rutgers trucks). I question the fairness of the previous delete because so few responses were taken. The failure to pass may have been due to poor quality, which I believe I avoided in this article, as well as a lack of research in notability (possibly because of lack of citations). This rewritten version comes complete with citations. A simple search of Grease trucks in Google brings copious amounts of results (notable results might I add). Valoem ^talk 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grease trucks are a well known regional institution of sorts. I would estimate that the majority of people who went to college in the Greater NJ area since 1990 or so have heard of the grease trucks. They are a ubiquitous aspect of Rutgers college life, a large national univrsity and as such, it is my opinion that the entry is valid and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.113.139 (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP. Merging with Rutgers University is not a solution since it isn't solely a matter of "student life"...it's grown beyond its connection with Rutgers (as per Valoem). Though a reference on the Rutgers page is warranted, it's already there in the template and I think under the section titled "points of interest" (if not, i'll correct that). Deletion is not the solution, since this is notable and its notability is cited. This subject is just as notable as the Harvard Fuck Truck...actually moreso. —ExplorerCDT 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about the greese trucks in High School 30 minutes south of them. I went there often with my friends from High School. I took many people from my University 1 hr north of there to late night visits. Within New Jersey, this is a well know attraction. I've now moved 1.5 hrs west of them, and i drive with friends from Pennsylvania to share this expierence. I believe this article should be kept.--Mkrupnic 01:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nonsense subject.--Holdenhurst 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nonsense to one man is important to another. I have no interest in NASCAR or FIFA-related material, but that's no reason to delete them. MJKazin 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Your argument holds no ground (directed at Holdenhurst). Grease Trucks are notable and should be kept. 71.245.220.176 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Grease Trucks are a staple of the Rutgers campus. This article is not about a single truck on a single corner, it's about a specific group of trucks that cluster together. They are notable especially in light of the Fat Darrell/Maxim Magazine exposure. The history log of this article backs up Valoem's claim that this incarnation of the article was only created on 8/25/06 not March, and therefore should not be speedy deleted. Wl219 12:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that in order to make the Grease Trucks even more notable, references to 2005 Daily Targum articles about the complaints of harassment by female students should be added. Wl219 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted. The Grease Trucks are quite notable and have had several articles in magazines and newspapers as well as has been featured on a few shows on The Food Network. AntiG

These comments were moved from the Grease Trucks discussion page which is relevent to the debate 71.245.220.176 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, properly cited article that ascerts notability. Themindset 00:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"STRONG KEEP"* -- I lived in central jersey for 18 years and though I never attended Rutgers University, I visited the grease trucks on more than one occasion. The flow of young people crowding the area late at night is a social event in itself. Good memories, affordable yummy greasy food, more fun than going to the local diners. The grease trucks are a part of New Brunswick's youth culture. I was looking for information about them to show my west-coast friend and this article conveniently showed up in search results. It was helpful... Please don't delete it...68.171.137.121 07:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I was in Tampa last fall, Rutgers came to play USF and there was a feature on the grease truck (presumably because of the Maxium article). I think notability extends beyond Jersey. Agne 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grzybowski's paradox[edit]

Seems to be original research or some very minor (and likely unnamed) paradox. There were no references given. Google searches for the term bring up nothing, and Google searches for Grzybowski math paradox and Grzybowski math bring up a Polish math professor, but nothing relevant to the topic. --Wafulz 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of paradoxes. Delete Leibniz 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. Turing discusses this error in his 1936 paper on computable numbers and does not cite it to anyone. Gazpacho 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. The content is already discussed under computable numbers, and crediting it to Grzybowski is questionable. 192.75.48.150 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article on computable numbers - this paradox is not discussed there at present.If Turing considered this paradox, credit it to him. Has anybody found a non-trivial solution of this paradox? (The trivial solution is assuming that the set of all computable numbers does not exist). HTG.
- It's discussed in the first paragraph under "Properties". Please do not add dubious theoretical claims to Wikipedia. Gazpacho 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Countability of computable numbers is stated, as well as the fact that Cantor's diagonal argument cannot be used to obtain un uncountable set of computable numbers, but the paradox is not discussed. HTG.
  - About each algorithm there is a unique truth as to whether it generates the n-th digit of a computable real number when given n. So it is possible to form an ordered list of computable real numbers. When such a list is given, Cantor's diagonal procedure gives the n-th digit of a number not from the list in finite time, so the reals generated in this way are computable. This fact should not be interpreted as uncountability of computable real numbers. HTG.
- Sorry, no. A program either computes a number or doesn't, but you can't decide that computationally. Also, no source.Gazpacho 08:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gazpacho. Here is circumstantial evidence that this is OR: the article's creator, User:HTG, has also made unusual edits elsewhere, such as this one in Luminiferous aether. It may be just a coincidence, but there is a physicist named H. Tomasz Grzybowski who is at the Toruń Centre for Astronomy at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Poland. Michael Kinyon 12:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Seifert[edit]

Minor musician who has written a very flattering article about himself (see the talk page). Anyway, doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC, and google searches of his name bring up no reliable third party sources for verification. Wafulz 23:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is POV, not written in the style of an encyclopaedic article, and there are no references. JenLouise 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Allmusic has an "Alexandra Seifert", but I don't think it's the same person. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would tag it as a copyvio (because the author doesn't realize that his assertion on the talk page doesn't mean a thing when we have no evidence to link the account to the subject of the page in question.) but since there aren't any third-party reliable sources I'll let it go through the delete process. ColourBurst 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - TexMurphy 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He also has only 17 listeners on Last.fm. Prolog 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of him - can't be that non-notable.--Holdenhurst 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV IV[edit]

Procedural nomination, user did not use afdx. neutral --Wafulz 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators original reasoning:

Seems no longer to exist! Link doesn't work Echalone 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original AFD here Yomangani ^talk 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The link works for me and the site exists. --waffle iron ^talk 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's not already clear by my nomination ;) Link still doesn't work for me. Echalone 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Nominator's opinion struck as duplicate[reply]
- "Link doesn't work for me" is not a particularly helpful reason for deletion. We also need to cover websites that do not exist anymore but were popular at some point of time. Heck, we have a whole category for these... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page loads for me, but it doesn't seem notable, and I can't find any reliable sources that have covered it. As such, it fails WP:V. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No valid reason to delete. DCEdwards1966 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The site loads just fine and has never had significant downtime. It is the fourth largest non-Wikipedia wiki, and it was featured on Slashdot. --CygnusTM 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reading the comments, it seems to have been nominated in the first place as an error/oversight, and in any event, there's simply no compelling reason yet described to delete it. --JCaesar 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have yet to be swayed by any of the above arguments for deleting the article. Not to mention that the original nominator's main point that the link doesn't work for him when it clearly is a thriving website is invalid. --Lance Conzett 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The comment that it "is one of the largest wikis on the web" needs to be sourced or removed, however. RFerreira 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a link to the source right in the middle of the sentence. (Click "largest wikis.") What more do you need? --CygnusTM 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for asking. We should not be using other Wikipedia articles as sources. Cite the actual source, not the Wikipedia article. RFerreira 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - [65] –– Lid^(Talk) 05:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not only is it the fourth largest non-Wikipedia wiki, it is third behind only the German wikipedia and English wikipedia for most views which are pretty much used as the basis for all other wikipedias. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft.--Holdenhurst 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which means the article is kept, but cleanup to exclude all non-notable information. —Mets501 (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ó Ruanaidh[edit]

The person has no fame or noteworthiness and is using Wikipedia to promote his resume/CV, in contravention of policy. Tt 225 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:VAIN. Google search with his full name is much much smaller than the one claimed in the article[66]. His work has received been fairly successful in being cited but its not of a level of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 02:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His biography, publications and awards add up to notability. Wikipedia already has an article on the notable topic of Digital watermarking, in which Joseph Ó Ruanaidh did pioneering work. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to vote for myself if I can. The comment above about the Google search is not accurate since academic references almost never use first names. --oruanaidh (Talk) 19:07, 25 September 2006 (EST)
Keep. His book and work are recommended reading at my university. His work has proved beneficial to solving problems in DSP. Recommend article be kept. Proof: Book stocked in university library. and read frequently for research. --(Linuxwikiuser 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Holdenhurst 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to hang on whether Ó Ruanaidh's work is significant and well-known which is, as WP:PROF says, hard for those not in an academic's own field to judge. The article itself leaves a lot to be desired though. The introduction doesn't state the person's notability. If this article survives, I'd suggest starting it with something like 'Dr. Joseph Ó Ruanaidh is an Irish research scientist specialising in digital signal processing techniques.', or some other statement which immediately establishes the grounds for the notability. The link to Google is pointless. The link to Siemens doesn't even mention the subject. And finally, I think the author should have waited for someone else to start this article - Crosbiesmith 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the last entry that the article is too terse and needs to be rewritten. However, on closer inspection it is obvious that the subject is proficient in two different fields at the same time - namely Bayesian Signal Processing and Digital Watermarking. Of the two fields, he is very notable in the field of Digital Watermarking although I am concerned that he has not published in quite a long time. digital_watermarker 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before writing this entry, I actually read the list of requirements for entry into Wikipedia where it says, for example, (paraphrased) that the average college professor would not qualify. Evidence must be available that the work of the researcher is highly cited, that he may have written a book read by more than 5000 people (I remember that one), be an invited speaker at conferences etc. etc. I have done all this in spades. It was hard work getting to that level (especially when one had to start at the bottom). Please consider the evidence and the Wiki-guidelines carefully before voting. -- oruanaidh 18:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If, and only if, the article is limited to notable information. Themindset 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Watch International[edit]

Organization of little significance, no references, and appears decidedly POV (exists solely to promote a particular POV) ////Blaxthos 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. A quick Google reveals that it's a published non-profit organization. Considering some of the other orgs that make the cut this is notable enough for me. NeoFreak 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rewrite to avoid similarities with http://www.drugwatch.org/History.htm --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I'm sorry to step back in, but I guess I should have been more clear. My points are this:

organization itself is a prop: If you do more than a quick google you'd see that the organization in question is only "published" as a less-than-quarterly newsletter. The newsletters only contain opinion pieces, analysis of non-peer-reviewed studies (although the studies themselves aren't published) and pro-viewpoint news blurbs. They do no original research, and do nothing but blare press releases about themselves. It's all flash.
original research: I can't find anything about this organization that isn't original research... it's all circular. Everything you get on google ends up sourcing back to their own press releases! No one else is writing that they actually do anything.
significance: There are only 6 hits on google. All six source back to the same press releases! Six hits is not a significant organization.
repitition: As someone mentioned, avoid similarities with their own self-published history. How come all these google results read exactly the same? it's all from the same source!

/Blaxthos 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in interests of NPOV.--Holdenhurst 12:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 repost of deleted content by Uncle G. MER-C 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds Forums[edit]

This article has been recreated 3 times after previous deletion, the Newgrounds forums do not deserve their own article, you should simply write a detailed paragraph about it in the Newgrounds article. Jarvisganon 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remain undeleted I belive they are in need in there own article but theve actully been recreated 3 times!? Sorry if it's already made but I do belive they are large enouph I mean look at 4chan or SA Forums Or Nintendo NSider Forums You don't see them deleted. BigBlueMeanie 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)BigBlueMeanie[reply]

Yes, thats true but those other forums are much larger then the Newgrounds one. I think that the forums should be a large section of the Newgrounds article but not an entire page. And they were recreated by the same person all three times, so it wasnt three different people wanting it on. And because it got deleted three times it just shows how worthless it is. Jarvisganon.

Comment The SA forums have their own article because they are largely why the website is so popular- the majority of the site's features come from the forums. Also, if this article has been deleted three times it should be deleted as a re-post and protected. --Wafulz 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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