Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 5: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Move Polyemmory to right day
Line 138: Line 138:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Mother in Heaven}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Mother in Heaven}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films generating losses}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films generating losses}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyemmory}}

Revision as of 01:09, 6 October 2006

< October 4 October 6 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and no consensus on Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Petros471 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and Messianic prophecies of Jesus

WP:OR listcruft of links. There is no context, there is no soucing, and "fullfilled procephy" is subjective and not explained. It claims to be evidence "supporting the claim that Jesus has been promised by God to be born as a human."

The "Messianic prophecies of Jesus" is the exact same listcruft claiming "Many Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) contains certain Messianic prophecies of Jesus, or references that predict the coming of Jesus." No sources, no explanations, no context. It just has a list of vague subjective meanings of parts of the bible. Arbusto 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Per nom. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep of the latter These are all well-known examples of biblical verses which support the idea of the coming of Christ. All of these have been frequently interpreted and cited as examples of this. So, rather than deleting it and doubting the obvious fact that "Many Christians believe that the Old Testament contains certain Messianic Prophecies of Jesus", let's find sources and improve it. Excepting a bit of POV language, there is nothing incorrect or OR in this article. None of the reasons given by the nominator are accepted reasons for deletion. Find sources. Explain. Provide context. At the very least add a template. But for the love of Wikipedia, don't delete it. AdamBiswanger1 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has been in this poor state since 2002. In four years no one managed to find a source and contextualize the "list"? I'm not sold on "well-known" or even the validity of these examples. ---Arbusto 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it. Also, the point isn't that they're valid, but that they are commonly believed by Christians. Also, I created it in July of this year, so you must be referring to the other list. All of these have the potential to become like Isaiah 53, another article I created. AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list was created in 2002 and the prophecies article, which is the same information, was created in July 2006. What I mean by valid is that they aren't contextualized and thus, a particular claim without a source could be incorrect. Reading some, I think that is the case. Arbusto 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prophecies article is not the same information, because it contains detailed explanations each, whereas the other article merely lists them. What happened was this: I created section headings for each of the examples, hoping to fill them in later, but an anon IP actually did to my delight. I haven't had time to fully review this information being as busy as I am, but I plan to. I am also confused by your claim that they are "without a context". It is just a list of claims that Christians often cite as referring to Christ. It's one of those situations in which the "no context" problem can be solved by fixing up the opening paragraph. AdamBiswanger1 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you quote something you take it out of a larger work. That larger work is context referring to acts, premises, and events that give the quote meaning. Both articles are simply quotes without that larger meaning of what the quotes were centered on. Even if the article is deleted you can create a sandbox to improve it for reposting. And the articles are nearly identical, they both have examples about propechies of Jesus and use, say, Isiah 53, Psalms 22 and many others. Arbusto 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These verses are listed as messianic prophecies of Jesus on these sites: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] AdamBiswanger1 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. TJ Spyke 01:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first, then keep the second as cornerstone of religion. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as unsourced POV listcruft (Biblecruft?), with no objections to the use of this material in creating a properly sourced article on the same subject. Opabinia regalis 02:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for extremely clear OR -Markeer 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Resolute 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, WP:NOR, WP:V, listcruft. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies - much of it seems to be copyvio lifted from sites such as this one, and to the extent that the list has been modified or merged with other such lists, it constitutes OR. Keep Messianic prophecies of Jesus - the article is unsourced, but I find it unlikely that most of it is OR, and I think we can source it if someone is willing to try. --Hyperbole 07:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and merge per Tarret's suggestion and Adam's comments. This topic is a well established concept in Christian theology and evangelical interpretation of the OT testament. I have added references to each of the scriptures quote in the Messianic prophecies of Jesus article to answer the nominator's concern. The links all go to either scholarly journals or published books where the authors deal with the messanic nature of the scripture. I have also added further reading sources as well as external links to skeptical and jewish analysis. The article now passes WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT. The article could use some tidying and expansion of skeptical and jewish views for NPOV concerns but those are not grounds for deletion. I would ask that all the delete voters take a look at the referenced and expanded version and possibly reconsider your vote. Agne 09:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Tarret wants to keep the list and delete the other, while Adam wants to delete the list and keep the other. Arbusto 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tarret wants to keep the information from the one and merge it to the other. There is no contradiction here. AdamBiswanger1 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read it. Tarret wants to "merge Messianic prophecies of Jesus into [[List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament" and you want to do the opposite. It is a contradiction. Arbusto 00:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you merge, you are inncorporating the information each article in one consolidated article. It's all about keeping the information versus just deleting it.Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a bit unclear in that these two articles are grouped, I will summarize the voting so far. There are 8 "Delete" votes for "Messianic prophecies of Jesus", and 5 "Keep" votes so far. All have voted "Delete" for the first listed article. Hopefully this will help the closing admin. AdamBiswanger1 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's disappointing that only one editor voting "oppose" for Messianic prophecies has written more than one line. It's very frustrating to have sound logic combated with "Delete both per nom". AdamBiswanger1 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist separately. This AFD is unnecessarily confusing, and should never have been a group nomination. I wonder how many of the people voting "delete both" have bothered to examine the second? — Haeleth Talk 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please list this as two seperate nominations --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, and others disagree. Two articles on the same topic using nearly identical verses without context. Arbusto 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist separately per above. But for the record, Delete the first one per nom. Keep the second article, as it is encyclopaedic, contains sources, and any problems with formatting or POV can be fixed by cleanup. Ramsquire 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first but Keep second.UberCryxic 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles make their subjectivity clear - it's not as if they are prosletysing tracts. Content is academically useful, though cleaning up would benefit. Blowmonkey 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepand let a thousand edit wars bloom as to what was fortold and was the prophecy fulfilled.Edison 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Edgecution 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and merge per Agne. Looking at its current state, the second article seems to be in very good shape WRT WP:V and WP:NOR. --- The Bethling(Talk) 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first; Comment on the second For List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, there is no uniform Christian position on what claim have been or are yet to be fulfilled, none of the references listed for this article claim that there is and it would be OR and POV to select one author's view of what's in and what's out. Moreover, all the claims of fulfillment presented in the article are quotes to the New Testament which (a) not all Christians agree is literally true; (b) is internally inconsistent (see Internal consistency and the Bible). There are no claims of fulfillment advocated by numerous Christian groups from evident outside of the Bible -- especially eschatological harbingers. For Messianic prophecies of Jesus, the whole premise of the article is that "many Christians believe" but there is absolutely no reference to which denominations on each point and how "many" is "many" (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words); unless this can be somehow corrected verifiably the whole article is no more than a collective set of authors' opinions that someone could claim yadda yadda yadda. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 1st, Delete 2nd. The list is pointless. The latter article, while better, makes a grave mistake in using the generic "Christian" appelation, as there are so many diverse brands of Christianity that have existed. The content could be revised a little to specify which Christians belief point x, but it would probably be best, IMO, to delete it outright and start from scratch again. Badbilltucker 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying note The "generic Christian appelation" is used in the exact context that the sources attached to the statements use them. Just as the "Jewish scholars" statements are used in the context of their sources. The authors of the "Christian sources" all identify themselves as Christian and present their interpretation of the messianic prophecy as Christian. Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When was 'pointlessness' a criterion for deletion? There are hundreds of list articles with far less point than this; List of one time characters in The Simpsons would be a good example. These are foundational scriptures of a major religion. DJ Clayworth 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both even the second article is a collection of Bible excerpts. The subject matter of these article is more a problem for theologians then Wikipedians, and is so sensitive that citng the wrong Bible can raise POV concerns. I think it is best Wikipedia not treat here.-- danntm T C 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we not have these articles because the common wikipedian isn't interested in them? And by the way, if you want the second article to be more than just "a collection of Bible excerpts", add to it. I would also add that it is not simply a collection of Bible verses. Read through it and improve what you think needs fixing. AdamBiswanger1 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the first, Weak Keep the second. The first is an incurable case of original research. Who's to say what prophecies "Christians" consider fulfilled? I find it inconceivable that there is any sort of concensus among Biblical scholars on this subject, and all we can offer with a list is the opinion of one or more editors, particularly without citations - and even with citations, well, I'm sure you could find a citation claiming some verse fulfills just about every prophecy. The second article is better, as it's about a major theme in the Bible which is worthy of treatment, and is a fairly well-written article as well. I also agree that these should have been listed seperately. -Elmer Clark 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both because there are no sources and no explanations for the ambiguity and subjectivity of the article. Wikipediarules2221 23:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The second article has ample sources that all pass WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, Neutral on the second. The first seems to be OR, speculative and not of sufficient notability. The second one seems better, though I'm not convinced its notable enough, however I'm not opposed to it either. --The Way 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first and Keep second per Adam Biswanger, Elmer Clark et al. Pace Danntm, the second is not just a subject for theologians, it is also appears in historical works on the early Christian Church, and even if it were "just theological", that would be no reason to delete the article. I share Haeleth's concerns that the joint nomination is likely to result in ill-informed "delete both" votes (and I mean votes). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. These lists are mostly useless. Messianic prophecies are often used as arguments for christianity, but this can be discussed in bible prophecy. Bob A 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep While these are not cited, that's largely because they are well-known in Christian circles. It will be very easy to find references to back these up. How come we're allowed to make lists of characters that appear once in The Simpsons but not foundational scriptures of a major religion? DJ Clayworth 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Simpson charcter can be WP:V and it is not POV. However, "fulfilled Old Testament prophecies" is POV and listcruft. Arbusto 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The two articles will look better as a single article.Bagginator 14:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense: Merge what into what? It will still just be a list of Bible verses, and wikipedia is not a directory of Bible verses. --Arbusto 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the second put it in a clear context of it's relevancy to Christian thought and studies. Of course it can be expanded more but even in its current state the second article is far from being just a directory of Bible verses. Agne 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Arbusto, Bob. Eusebeus 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wikipedia is not a concordance. The problem is that these assume the historical truth of both old and new testaments; they might have a place in a Christian encyclopaedia (if they were properly sourced), but not, I think, here. To be fair the second article is less bad than the list and could perhaps be saved, but I don't see that our coverage of Christian theology is lacking sufficiently to justify yet more subjects. Guy 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of coverage on Messianic prophecies in Christian Theology (which, if done right and in accordance to NPOV, NOR, etc would be larger then what the Biblical Prophecy, Christ and general Christian Theology articles would be able to accomdate). Messianic prophecies are a major component of Christian Theological thought and they direct relate to how Christianity relates to Judaism, Islam and even skeptical thought. There is quite a bit more that can be done with the second article but I would say the bulk of work already in there is worth saving so that this article can grow organically. Agne 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete first, Weak Delete second, which has some sourcing and more refined structure, but which seems to still lack the ability to be a verifiable survey of "Christian" theological thought, though if some future iteration were narrower in scope, it might solve some of these issues. - TewfikTalk 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per User:DJ Clayworth You'll find lists like this in the back of many Bibles. The biggest failing of these articles is that they don't cite specific sources such as specific Bibles which have these lists. Moreover, the organization of material considering prophecies could be regularized across the two articles. However, these are not arguments for deletion. These are arguments for improving and re-organizing the articles. --Richard 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep of both per Richard, DJ Clayworth et al. (No comment about merging as of this writing.) --Joe Sewell 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pedia-I 18:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both, per Opabinia_regalis and others. WP:OR clearly states that a synthesis of other research to advance a position is against WP policy. And yes, I've read both articles and they belong in the same nom. SkerHawx 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first as POV listcruft, keep second and source/expand it, because this is really a theme in Christian theology and there must be a lot of sources about it.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:04, 11 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 speedy delete as corporate advertising, which is now speedily deletable. The article content is a straight copy of the blurb that appears at the bottom of the company's press releases combined with a paraphrase of the blurb that appears on the company's official web site; no sources are cited; and the only external links are to the company's own web pages. A substantial rewrite from sources independent of the company, citing those sources, would be required in order to make an encyclopaedic article. Uncle G 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3FN Marketing

Non-notable affiliate network; no evidence that it meets WP:CORP; prod tag was deleted without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Delete per CSD G11 (Blatant Spam). Leuko 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure if it meets G11 -- if the company were important, the article would be a decent start. But no evidence of importance. --Allen 00:53, 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 no consensus-- Keep AdamBiswanger1 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webster G. Tarpley

Another non notable conspiracy theorist. Not a single reliable source present. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Peephole 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • His top book has a rank of 25K on Amazon and 16K at B&N. I would think that New York Magazine would qualify as a reliable mainstream source. It's no fly-by-night conspiracy rag. *Sparkhead 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must be missing something here, where is the New York Magazine reference? JoshuaZ 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Synthetic Terror was already deleted as NN (only in 37 libraries nationwide) and I fail to see how he passes notability requirements without it.--Rosicrucian 00:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosicrucian. --Aude (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does it ever end? --Tbeatty 02:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rosicrucian. --Aaron 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Rosicrucian — both make convincing arguments. CWC(talk) 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Rosicrucian Kedlav 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't make up my mind. His book on Bush (41) is terribly researched and often contradicts other sources (or from what I can see draws connections out of thin air) and there are a gazillion online mirrors, meaning his wrong factoids keep finding their way into articles. It's somewhat helpful to have an article on him, then, showing the breadth and, er, depth of his career. He's been closely associated with Lyndon LaRouche for most of it. Notable nut? --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung's observation about the article in New York Magazine and concerns raised directly above. JoshuaZ 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding Rosicrucian's argument, keep in mind some of the votes for the book called for merge of the information into this article. Also note that the claim in the deletion discussion for that book that Borders lists it as out of print was a complete falsehood. Borders lists 1st edition OOP. The 3rd edition is still in print and sells at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon. Minor, but also note the library search now shows 44 libraries for that book, and 227 libraries carrying his unauthorized Bush Bio. *Sparkhead 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's a slight bump for Synthetic Terror, and admittedly we're not trying to resurrect the Synthetic Terror article. I don't feel that deletion was undeserved though. He might meet notability requirements for the Bush Sr. bio, but it's bad enough that I've already spotted Wikipedia articles citing it as if it were a reliable source. If I were to assume for a moment that the Bush book is notable, the article is still grossly undersourced and needs assertations of his notability that don't come from conspiracy theorists. As Morton said, we're not here to pander to a Walled Garden.--Rosicrucian 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, Morton, and Rosicrucian. - Crockspot 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes all points mentioned nomination:
    • WP:BIO: Passes per The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. and Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Like him or not, thinking he's crazy or not, he has made a name for himself in the field regarding government conspiracy history. "Who Killed Aldo Moro" established an international audience (in 1978), published in both Italian and English (at least).
    • WP:RS: New Yorker already covered above. He's on nationwide radio shows often, and international ones as well. He's been on CNN, during the whole Charlie Sheen conspiracy issue [11]. He was a panel member for Axis for Peace, a gathering that got international mainstream media coverage (though not much in USA, but this is not us.wikipedia.org). This last point also goes toward proving WP:BIO.
  • Comment There are a couple of problems with Sparkhead’s assertions, a) Tarpley and his 911 conspiracy theory got about a page of copy in the New York Magazine, NOT the New Yorker as Sparkhead asserts, BIG DIFFERENCE (one is national, the other a local weekly). b) “nationwide radio shows often” Being on Alex Jones’s radio show does not pass WP:BIO. Brimba 08:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V: What would you like to verify? That he's written books? That he has a radio show? What is the failure here?
Now, while the article itself may not detail these references well enough, that simply means it is in need of cleanup, not deletion. *Sparkhead 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sparkhead Zagalejo 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sparkhead. Tarpley is a notable author with multiple publications, all easily verifiable, and a well-known proponent of certain conspiracy theories. --Hyperbole 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability has been established and verified per Sparkhead. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sparkhead has demonstrated that all qualifications for retention per policy have been met. Closing admin, please apply less weight/credence to any non-policy based or non-policy citing deletion reasons, in light of recent slew of anti-conspiracy theory AfDs. · XP · 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep sort of a tough call here. His achievements seem pretty notable, and I'd say "[his book] broke open the affiliation of the Red Brigades with the neofascist lodge P2." seems like a pretty noteworthy achievement. Lots of Google hits as well. However, we haven't been able to find too many external reviews of his work, and conspiracy theorists tend to have a web prescence rather disproportianate to their overall notability. However, I'm satisfied enough to vote weak keep. -Elmer Clark 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, Rosicrucian. Sparkhead's assertions are simply incorrect, as has been shown several times on this page, including below. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandy 23:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosicrucian. Tarpley is a minor player within one niche of conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't the people who are voting "delete per nom" offer some rebuttals to Sparkhead's comments? Zagalejo 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For WP:BIO, Sparkhead asserts one of his works as notable, but the passage he quotes regards "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." which we simply haven't seen. For WP:RS we have been given one reliable source to assert his noteworthiness and one reliable source does not an article make. As far as WP:V the article makes unsourced claims about "Who Killed Aldo Moro?" that need to be backed up with cites. Now, perhaps this is all cleanup work. But it is cleanup work that nobody has undertaken in over a year, and if the article can be brought up to snuff the onus is upon those that want to save the article.--Rosicrucian 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also cleanup work that nobody requested in over a year. The talk page is, for all purposes, blank. Put in {{fact}}, {{cleanup}}, {{unencyclopedic}}, whatever. Assume that the article was created in good faith, act in good faith by putting up requests/warnings for improvements before rushing to delete. This stampede to AfD is ridiculous, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. *Sparkhead 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's being requested now. If you believe it's this easy to address the deletion reasons, nothing is stopping you from doing so while the AfD is in process, and if that can be demonstrated you might sway some votes.--Rosicrucian 14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is request with a gun to the article's head. A tagged request would let someone do it at a decent pace, and wouldn't use the time of everyone voting on an AfD. This approach requires someone to rush to research and put things together. I have done it before, possibly turning a delete into a keep. I don't have the time at the moment to do it properly. There's a reason the deletion process mentions tagging an article before bringing it into the deletion process. Yes, the article can be recreated if fixed "offline", but it's all a matter of a civil approach to improving articles. *Sparkhead 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't the one that proposed the deletion, though I'm endorsing the proposal. The bottom line is that you've claimed this is a matter for cleanup rather than deletion. I'm countering by asking that you show us that, and if you haven't the time to do so perhaps you should approach editors that do.--Rosicrucian 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom… (yes, per nom) And if you believe this kind of stuff, I have the title to the Golden Gate Bridge in my pocket… All joking aside, maybe I should write a book: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapses, all a part of a U.S. Government Conspiracy... Yes, the Tarpley article is content that Wikipedia should not have as a respectable encyclopedia. The "New York Magazine reference" is not convincing. Therefore, Delete. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable writer of a non notable "book".--MONGO 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peephole, Rosicrucian, and Morton Devonshire. -- Huysman 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleter as per all that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others and nom, non notable. Just don't salt unless someone actually wants to do the work, but considering it hasnt been done, its time to delete. --NuclearZer0 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, more notable than some of the other conspiracy theorists we used to have articles on, but still not encyclopedic. GabrielF 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Brimba 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per elmer.--csloat 10:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that articles on people with controversial political views are magnets for defamation, negative labeling and other violations of WP:LIVING. KleenupKrew 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, their articles aren't in any danger of being cluttered up with things like Category:Conspiracy Theorists and Category:Anti-Semites if kept. This article is. Two, they're obvious public figures. Tarpley is marginally public at best. Did anyone ask him whether he wanted an article on Wikipedia that may possibly wind up with negative information about him and that he will have to spend the rest of his life watching? KleenupKrew 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the biog articles get cluttered with crap categories; it's a good argument for CfD, not AfD. And people don't get asked whether they want wikipedia articles about themselves - it's one of the costs of being a public figure, "marginal" or no. I don't particularly like this guy but he seems at least as notable as the hundreds of porn stars that have articles about them... cheers,csloat 06:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everybody brings up the porn stars to try to justify conspiracy cruft. Look, the fact that there's a bunch of porn star articles doesn't justify a non-notable article. You can't just say "well, X has an article, so why is mine being deleted?" If anything, it just means there are a bunch of porn star articles that should probably be deleted.--Rosicrucian 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you won't get much argument from me there (and I hope you don't think this is "my" article).--csloat 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tarpley's SYNTHETIC TERROR book is now ranked #1,101 in sales at Amazon following a 5 star review from their top reviewer of political non-fiction works, Robert Steele, who noted that it was "...the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon.". Given the volume of sales and readers, and the prominent review gaining further new readers, how does Tarpley fail to meet criteria of notability? The book is also ranked #288 at Amazon.france. I didn't see the discussion removing his SYNTHETIC TERROR volume itself, but wouldn't have a problem seeing comments about that book merged into his bio. Anthony Thorne 07:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The google video of his appearance on CSpan has been viewed 47,000 times. Synthetic Terror has already sold over 10,000 copies; the average run for books in the US is around 3,000. The #288 ranking on Amazon.fr is for books in English, it was as high as 642 in livres en francais until it temporarily sold out. I would also like to see what the SYNTHETIC TERROR Wiki page looked like. Google returns 248,000 hits on "Webster Tarpley". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.32.26 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • While I can admire your efforts to improve the article with your recent flurry of edits, I must remind you that as you haven't cited your sources on the added info you've actually hindered the article in a way.--Rosicrucian 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Anthony Thorne's comment above, notability and verifiability should no longer be in dispute. How about if we discuss the neutrality of the efforts to delete this page now...? JPLeonard 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony Thorne's comment asserts the subject's notability, but that in no way means we can now make claims in the article without citing sources, because that does violate WP:V.--Rosicrucian 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please specify the claims in the article you wish verified. JPLeonard 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: Neutrality. I'm adducing statistical evidence here that the effort to delete this is not neutral, presumably political bias. I've gone to this category, Category:United States writer stubs. I took the first ten writers there, along with a rough measure of article length.
  1. Ace Atkins 4 lines
  2. Albert Bigelow Paine 2 screens
  3. Alec Foege 5 lines
  4. Alexander Chee 1 screen
  5. Alexander King (author) 7 lines
  6. Alexander Masters 2 lines
  7. Alexander O. Smith 1 screen
  8. Alfred H. Bill 2 screens
  9. Alfred Kazin 1 screen
  10. Alice McDermott 1 screen

Not one of the 10 has been recommended for deletion. None of them appear to be particularly notable. (Tarpley now has 3 screens of content so maybe this is no longer even a stub.)
I conclude bias is shown. You say your deletion motion is neutral? Let's talk about that now. JPLeonard 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: JPLeonard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

If you want to, recommend the non-notables for deletion. There are famous conspiracist writers: Milton William Cooper, David Icke, maybe Thierry Meyssan; Tarpley just is not one of them. Tom Harrison Talk 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:BIO; remember that a Google test is only useful as a gauge of negatives in this context. TewfikTalk 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm open to discussion on what needs to be adjusted or rectified with the Tarpley article, and also what was 'wrong' (sorry if I missed a lengthy prior discussion) with the entry on his key book. I'm especially curious as to why the entry on 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR couldn't have been framed to include equal sides of the debate on its validity, i.e positive and critical, rather than the complete removal of the subject. I'd also like to reconfirm what actually needs source citing in the current article, with - again - apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Tarpley has been getting more attention and positive reviews lately than Icke, and has greater credibility, unless Wikipedia currently exists to solely republish the official story about current political events. False Flag terrorist activity is documented - see links to Daniele Ganser's European work if I need to bring them in - and Tarpley has been quoted by Steele as the current English-language expert on the topic. Again, I don't see the rationale for complete deletion over a pro/con page discussing both sides. Anthony Thorne 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. You say "clearly fails WP:BIO." At WP:BIO it says "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles... Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Just check Synthetic Terror on Amazon and you will see multiple independent reviews. 44 reviews in all. Most of them raves; average is 5 stars. Google hits a gauge of negatives? The links are due to interest in his work. Anyway the argument is specious; it would mean deleting the bio's of infamous figures. There are currently 5 Google news items on Webster Tarpley. You have to search on "Webster Tarpley," not "Webster G. Tarpley." I repeat. Will one of the deleters please give us a hint what are the claims they want the keepers to verify? It is pretty clear that a lot of people want to shoot the messenger because they don't like the message. Thanks, I don't want to recommend hundreds of non-notable writer stubs for deletion. Let the deleters here go do it. But some people DO want to delete Tarpley, because they notably dislike what he has to say.JPLeonard 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, you're citing things like personal webpages on Tripod. Thus, quite a few of your sources do not pass WP:RS which is required for WP:V. Beyond that, you'd do well to assume good faith.--Rosicrucian 02:36, 10 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 Speedy keep. -- Longhair\talk 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tam

This was previously speedy deleted with the explanation "CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group," but I restored it because I don't think it's that clear cut a case. No vote for now. Postdlf 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Its a notable product with a rich history. It could however be re-written and possibly expanded. Tarret 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, internationally-available product. If anything, Tim Tam Slam is a far better candidate for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of sources for its notability obvious from a quick google. (G11 getting off to a good start - it isn't even written like an advert). Yomanganitalk 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and not just because they are so tasty and delicious. The product is well-known, even outside Australia, and is just as encyclopedic as oreo. (Now I need a snack...) Agent 86 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Silly deletion, as a few seconds on google would have found. Natgoo 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is Australia's most popular snack food/chocolate in terms of worldwide recognition, total sales and revenue. This is definately a notable enough subject. Witty lama 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Natgoo 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was concerned when I read about CSD G11 that it may be misused to delete well-written, notable, encyclopedic articles on brand names or companies as "purely promotional". What next, Vegemite? Thanks for the restore and bringing it to AfD, Postdlf. --Canley 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has no sources but for the parent companies home page. *munch munch* I fully support the clean-up of advertising. *slurp slurp* This is probably best merged to the parent company. *does proverbial slam* I would have preferred that this be handled less expeditiously, both in the deletion and the restoration. *blissful smile as melted-choc-goodness hits mouth* - brenneman {L} 01:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost everyone in Australia knows of Tim Tams. oTHErONE (Contribs) 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very wellknown product in Australia. I too am very concerned about CSD G11 and its potential for abuse. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 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 The result was Delete AdamBiswanger1 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sheppard

Contested prod. Not notable per WP:BIO, since there is no verifiable (even cited) claim of notability. Storkk 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. -- RHaworth 00:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7/G11. Leuko 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is claimed, so I don't believe this falls under CSD, or I would have {{db-bio}}'d it. --Storkk 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know, I was just trying to effect the inevitable, without mentioning WP:SNOW. :-) Leuko 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per the article, which ends with the embarassing line, "For IB students around the world, past and present, the name Matt Sheppard will be the symbol of communication and camaraderie. We salut you." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, or redirect to Matthew Shepard; could be a reasonable misspelling. --Allen 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be useful to IB students; no other site on the internet like the external linked site. Propose leaving some time for edition or rewrite. Point of article is to allow for flow of technical communication and discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.36.62.139 (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect per Allen. This guy is not notable. Danny Lilithborne 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verification or sources to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unreferenced, unverified, possible vanity. Resolute 04:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus anyone wanna check on International Baccalaureate to see if it checks out? --Arbusto 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly vanity. I agree with User:Starblind. JIP | Talk 05:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW delete per above. MER-C 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Matthew Shepard. Homonyms? Homophones? I've forgotten my second-grade English classes. The Literate Engineer 07:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Love the "sort of ancestor to Wikipedia" bit. Appears to be WP:VAIN. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sites may be of note to some, but Mr Sheppard is not. It's not well constructed either Blowmonkey 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as vanity article and no showing of notability. Ramsquire 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Matthew Sheppard per explanation by Hyperbole. Ramsquire 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect. Gazpacho 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we redirect to the notable Matthew Sheppard, it is two different people? Ramsquire 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and redirect to Matthew Sheppard. At first, I would have opposed the redirect, but a Google search indicates that Matthew Sheppard is occasionally referred to as Matt (e.g., [12]). There is also an assistant director named Matt Sheppard ([13]), but he appears to be a non-notable person. --Hyperbole 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect/protect redirect to the Matthew Shepard article. · XP · 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I'd object to protecting any redirect, since the Matt Sheppard who is the assistant director to the upcoming movie Lycanthropy - or the Matt Sheppard who maintains kstructIB - or some other Matt Sheppard - could become notable in the future. --Hyperbole 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like an ego trip. George J. Bendo 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect to Matthew Shepard. No citations or proof that his site is notable, and the tone of the article definitely smells like vanity to me. -Elmer Clark 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non notable and redirect as above stated to Matthew Shepard --NuclearZer0 15:24, 6 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 Speedy delete A7. NawlinWiki 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UmLaUt (Band)

Delete. I can't find any information on this band, and no sources are provided. A Google search for Umlaut+Barber-Punk brings up nothing, and Umlaut+Kilcoyne-Wikipedia doesn't give any relevant results. Umlaut+Omaha will get a couple of mentions on blogs. Contested speedy and prod. ... discospinster talk 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am going to call this one a hoax. See entries by 68.229.174.216 and 63.230.45.243 varyingly describing the 15-year old band lead from omaha as a famous cowbell player and performer at lollapalooza. --Infrangible 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is just another nn-band, and the original author contesting speedeletion does not mean the speedeletion cannot take place. JDoorjam Talk 07:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 09:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per JDoorjam. So tagged. MER-C 12:03, 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 Speedy delete. Teke (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Grant, IV

Unverifiable (Google hasn't heard of him) soapboxing in violation of WP:NOT. Contested speedy delete (A7) by author. Leuko 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (I can't find anything on him either). Yomanganitalk 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A guy who keeps refusing to register his car?! Google doesn't even produce one hit, and the article is mostly quoted passages of law. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe speedy? Doesn't directly assert importance, but does assert things that author might see as encyclopedic importance. --Allen 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Starblind. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (as the one who tagged it for speedy the first time). The fact that he's a nutcase who doesn't believe he should register his car is irrelevant. The relevant thing is he's an unknown, unverifiable nutcase. Fan-1967 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - the author cannot remove the speedy tag. It's been replaced. MER-C 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Mob

This article describes this gang as a small street mob that hangs around and does nothing. I have strong suspicions that an article like this doesn't meet any notability requirements, and seems to only exist as spam. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability (I've tagged it for speedy). Yomanganitalk 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the article: "...very innactive and basically does nothing...". That's about as non-notable as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 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 Merge to List of Google products. AdamBiswanger1 04:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SearchMash

Article is just an advertisement for somebody's search engine. Alexa ranking is 596,646. Non-notable. Dr. Cash 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That "somebody" is Google --Rubber cat 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Whois shows it is indeed owned by Google. Stev0 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Wow; I searched for myself on this thing and it gave me a picture of myself I'd never seen before. Anyway, a Google search (yeah, the irony) shows searchmash is getting a lot of blog coverage. None of them look like established mainstream press, but the searchenginewatch at least looks like a reasonable industry source. --Allen 01:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge into a Google article. It is new, but notable. Tyro 01:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect Wow. After looking at it more closely, I see it is owned by google. What about merging this content in with List of Google products instead of deletion? Dr. Cash 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a Google technology. Just because it is debuting on a seperate domain doesn't mean it isn't Google. Maybe put it in some sort of Google category. A merger, as mentioned above, wouldn't be bad either. Maybe just a small subsection on the main Google Search page? WBHoenig 02:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Dr. Cash. Doesnt seem to warrant its own article, but should be mentioned. Resolute 04:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Google search. Maybe add a new section, "Technology testing". Michaelas10 08:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a Google article. It seems notable enough to keep. Shadow1 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per any of the above suggestions. Notable enough to mention, by virtue of being a Google site; not currently notable enough for a separate article (it can always be split out again in the event that this situation changes). — Haeleth Talk 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with an appropriate Google page, as suggested above. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to the parent Google article. Too new/unknown for it's own yet. · XP · 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Google. If it gets bigger, Recreate. People Powered 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge seems counterintuitive: the point of this site is to test it quietly and to disassociate it with Google Search in general. Furthermore, is it dramatically different from other Google offerings. Sean Hayford O'Leary 18:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article because, although new, it shows potential features of Google search in the future. Although I personally think that it deserves an article, I would be happy for it to be merged with the Google article. 0L1 - Talk - Contribs - 02:42, June 13, 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Google, as it lacks sufficient independant notability. - TewfikTalk 01:18, 10 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 AdamBiswanger1 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotology_(game)

Not notable, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(software) --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will most likely become notable. Metanet (the creator of this game) already has a considerable fan-base. It (the fan-base) is responsible for this lengthy article on N, Metanet's first game, and they have also created over 500,000 user maps for the aforementioned N game. -KingpinE7

  • Delete Might be notable when it's released, might not be. Current article content says it's an excerpt from a forum (!?). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please. Danny Lilithborne 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Ridiculous article.UberCryxic 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the time being, it's extremely non-notable. Until that changes, it does not belong here.--Lobizón 01:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on fixing it. Can't I have a little more time? -KingpinE7

    • Yes, you can keep improving the article throughout the voting period, which normally runs for five days. If you're afraid the article might be speedy-deleted in the meantime, you can use the template {{hangon}}, but nobody here is calling for that to happen. Please note, though, that it isn't the quality of the writing that is the main concern, it's whether an in-development Flash game should have an article in the first place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a Flash game, if you read the article you would know it's in C++ and OpenGL. For the record, it is also a fully commercial game, and will be distributed with a price tag. -KingpinE7
  • Delete. Anything that says "the article will be notable in the future" is crystal ball. If you want to improve the article, Kingpin, start by addressing verifiability with reliable third-party sources. Read those articles, don't assume you understand what "reliable" is because it has a very specific meaning here. The PC Gamer article is a start (if it indeed talks about the game in detail), but 1) there's no issue number or article title, that would be a good start to put in and 2) we need at least one more source. ColourBurst 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry Kingpin, but at this point, this game fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). If the game does become a success when it is released, a new article can, and should, be written, but at this point, there really is nothing remarkable about this game. It is simply one of a thousand video games under production. Resolute 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on finding that information. It might take a couple of days, thou -KingpinE7
  • Weak delete. It may fail the notability test, but I think that being featured in PC Gamer is fairly notable. Shadow1 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete, but don't salt or anything. May be notable later, but not yet. · XP · 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- Wait for more news, if none, then delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - per nom. Jpe|ob 09:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Simon Speed 22:03, 6 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 per WP:NFT and WP:SNOW (early closure). Duja

Six square

WP:NFT. Prod contested by page creator. zephyr2k 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also violates WP:DONTWRITELIKECRAP ... OK, there should be one. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; no assertion of importance... author explicitly states the purpose of the article is to promote the game. --Allen 01:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Delete it looks like some 2nd grader made thisSkynet1216 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mega Extreme Delete EX per the article: "The point of this article is to get other people playing..." Ohh, I was just wondering what the point was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete: fix the lanuage bu dont delete it. its just a game, and it sounds pretty cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.205.227 (talk • contribs)
I transferred this comment from the discussion page of this AFD. I'm being nice. zephyr2k 01:46, 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 Speedy Delete. Teke (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan wyatt

this article looks like its simply vandalism. Also, Google shows no hits for any football player Named Dan Wyatt. Paragon12321 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Nothing but nonsense here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this utterly un-rememberal article. ... discospinster talk 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete so sayeth Daniel. Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete... had tagged it db-nonsense, but it seems it was removed. --Storkk 02:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - the tag was removed by the author, who cannot do that. Replaced. MER-C 02:47, 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 speedily deleted (csd a7) by Tom harrison. MER-C 02:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen M. Sullivan

Delete. Non-notable person, likely a joke article. Contested speedy. ... discospinster talk 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Either jokey vanity page or jokey attack page (since being a "raging alcoholic" isn't something one normally brags about). In either case, the original speedy was correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:BIO, WP:V. EdJohnston 02:17, 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 AdamBiswanger1 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon kumai transformation x

Context-free article with no assertion of notability. What is it? -- RHaworth 02:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. MER-C 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google and Yahoo render nil results. Looks like an odd made-up card game with an odd made-up background story.--Húsönd 03:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context, fancruft, the game may or may not be non-notable. JIP | Talk 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shame that someone has spent so much time typing all that in... QuiteUnusual 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with all the above Blowmonkey 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. · XP · 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Dragon Kumai Transformation X (DKTX) is an online ccg created by Jack Faust. It is not completed yet. It will be an online game in which you can battle against other people online and change your deck." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and zero Google hits seals the deal. -Elmer Clark 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable but its about Breath of Fire for those concerned. Reads too much like a strategy guide with the deck listing in it as well. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read the crystal ball entry, and must agree on it's deletion, although it's not about breath of fire. --Jack Faust 21:07, 7 October 2006
  • Delete unverifiable, noncontextual, and WIN an instruction manual, etc. etc. TewfikTalk 01:20, 10 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. AdamBiswanger1 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ramsey

contested prod; no real notability here, drops a few names of people he worked with but no context on whether that was fleeting or not, and merely working near/with someone famous doesn't make one notable -- we don't have Einstein's janitor here after all Carlossuarez46 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as total failure of WP:V. --Aaron 03:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO even if it were verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Name dropping does not constitute notability. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO failure. · XP · 21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One "flopped" album does not notable make. -Elmer Clark 23:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SNOW. However, i'd like to see a version of Wikipedia that did include the people with the notability of Einstein's janitor -- that would be a great trivia question. People Powered 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, TewfikTalk 02:19, 10 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 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Project

Not notable. With "'Encyclopedia Project' Moon" I get 1,000 yahoo hits including this wikipedia article and mirrors. Uses metawiki type technology. Thus, it fails WP:WEB. Arbusto 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm unable to find any sources online not from the Unification Church so it also misses WP:V. JoshuaZ 04:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Not sure how it could possibly be unverifiable - it's there on the web[14]. You can see it. What more do you want? Notable: well it doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines, but for some reason I'm tempted to keep it anyway. The Land 14:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I relisted to get more opinions. Arbusto 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-web}}, no claim to notability, so tagged. Sandstein 07:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:58, 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 speedily deleted by Eagle 101 as spam. MER-C 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Press

Non-notable vanity press, not improved since June, no sourcing beyond the company's own website. --Rosicrucian 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. A publisher of non-notable conspiracy books is not notable. JoshuaZ 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable - their website is kind of amusing, its full of notes like "These imported books may have dented corners due to sea transport." and "All our DVD's are factory-pressed originals" - hardly sounds like an encyclopedic company. GabrielF 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the war on cruft continues.--Peephole 03:41, 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 10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Samuel

Does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p 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. Punkmorten 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gomes Casseres

Non-notable

While this article is lengthy and substantive, it seems to me to be an article about someone who does not meet the Notability requirements to be included in Wikipedia. It seems as if the article was written merely to promote this individual, and not because Mr. Casseres did anything notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

Biographies ARE appropriate, even biographries about non-notables, but not here on Wikipedia. Additionally since the entire article is unsourced, we have no way of knowing if Mr. Casseres ever even existed.

I propose deleting the article (or at least shortening and merging under people of curacao or something like this) because of the reasons stated above. Jordanwaring 13:51, 21 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:13, 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. Punkmorten 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silas McGuffers

Non-notable(4 Google hits) & Vanity article. Galaxytrio 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced and does not satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since User:Silasmcguffers created this article, doesn't that violate WP:VAIN? --141.156.232.179 17:48, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:17, 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. If you wish to have this in your userspace you may contact me. Grandmasterka 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Compact

A minor group of people doing a one-off sort of exercise, with a single print media mention. Don't think it is worth keeping. -- Gwern (contribs) 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Too early for an AfD. The article made two claims for notability - firstly that it had been picked up by major media and secondly that it is spreading to other areas. The first has now been removed as the citation request was around for 11 days, the second I've asked for citation requests. If that information can then be removed I'd say they were non-notable. JASpencer 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This concept has now made it to North Dakota. TWo print media articles that I have found - one in Entrepeneur and the other a SF article. MSNBC picked it up: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122324/
  • Delete--Peta 04:52, 27 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable yet; a group of fifty people who have been covered in some local media doesn't pass the bar. It might be a good idea to stick it in somebody's userspace in case it does catch on, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the article shouldn't exist unless it does. --Hyperbole 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hyperbole, and it seems the MSNBC link listed above is dead. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The San Francisco newspaper article certainly helps their case, but until I see this elsewhere I remain unconvinced that this is anything more than a very local phenomenon. -Elmer Clark 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Unless it grows to something more, however Wikipedia should not be facilitating that growth. --NuclearZer0 15:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as much of the article is written in first person plural "we plan" "our goal", etc., not only is it not notable, but borders on vanity SkerHawx 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy per above . Article can be re-created if it grows to be something more. --Richard 05:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough, one article doesn't quite cut it. Sandstein 20:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator or userfy for now. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 9 October 2006
  • Delete per nom, only single mention even claimed, TewfikTalk 02:41, 10 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. Without further discussion, I think it's safe to delete this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Woops, Royalguard11 relisted this without commenting out the AfD, so I mistakenly thought that there were no additonal comments in the week after it was relisted. I believe this deletion should be non-controversial, so I'm treating this like a prod. If anyone has an objection to my "early closure", please undelete (or ask me to undelete, if you're not an admin) and I will have no objections to a further relist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kertwang

merge or delete. This is a dictionary entry for a fictional term. Nekohakase 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef or as non notable neologism, or as both Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 22 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, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:27, 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 delete. Dakota 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the utility function

The article content does not match the title, and appears entirely redundant with Marginalism. RandomP 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've reordered the article a bit so that it reflects the title. I'm voting keep as it no longer reflects the specific AfD concerns for this nomination. Some fact checking is needed and if there are no sources I think it could go for a second AfD. JASpencer 07:36, 23 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It still is rather weaselly, and looks like original research to me. The title also is still not really descriptive of the article contents, and might go better as marginal utility of money. These problems might be fixable, though: if we could find an economist making the specific claim that money does not follow the rule of diminishing marginal utility, I'd be happy to switch to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for want of sources. Gazpacho 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless the problems listed above are fixed. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- the theories are well-known in economics circles, but should be more thoroughly cited in the article. Another re-write could kick me to Keep
  • Weak delete as sourcing might change my mind, TewfikTalk 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and potentially original research. I certainly never heard/read of anyone teaching this theory in my economics or game theory courses, and I certainly did hear the opposite. GRBerry 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still an unsourced, rambling essay. ~ trialsanderrors 23:02, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someday Never

Doesn't meet notability per WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 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, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the band's article, the articles for their two albums, Home Is Where The Heartache Is and The Natural Trend Of Breathing, and the article for their record company, All Records. The band's article does not assert the least bit of notability, nor do the articles for their albums (aside from getting one song in a PS2 game). The only notability I could even find online was that they played at one local stop of the Warped Tour- but said tour has (literally) a dozen or so local bands play at every stop. Their record label has three non-notable bands. It has released a grand total of four albums/EPs, and only one in the past two years. Just get rid of it all. -- Kicking222 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - band fails google test when it comes to WP:BIO, CDs for being released by a non-notable band and the record label per nom. MER-C 07:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Kicking222. -- saberwyn 11:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The game isn't mentioned in the band's article, so I don't know if the game itself has an article. Do PS2 soundtracks burn through a lot of songs? If the game is notable, I'd have to know more about gaming to know if that alone could confer notability on its soundtrack, but I'd say it at minimum counts as a non-trivial published work. Unrelatedly, I note that screamo is a relatively new genre; we're not going to have an article on every punk band that comes down the pike nowadays, but this is a rather smaller pond, which I'd say makes all the fish in it at least a little bigger.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per Kicking222. Maybe after the game comes out this band will become more notable and the article can be recreated at that time. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Kicking222. Good catch. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely low amazon.com SalesRanks on their albums, and the video game thing really does not convince me. -Elmer Clark 23:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn at this point, TewfikTalk 02:43, 10 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. Punkmorten 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelaron

NN web forum. 48 unique google hits [15] IslaySolomon 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. --Alan Au 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable on Alexa.com as a worldwide top 500,000 web site listed by popularity, with 96 unique web sites linking to it. Also noted in print in German gaming magazine Gamestar as the possible source of the still unsolved "leak" of the Doom 3 alpha. Also noted on numerous high-traffic news sites.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=Zelaron&url=http://www.zelaron.com/

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=6067

http://www.dvhardware.net/article890.html

http://www.ferrago.com/story/696

http://www.gamestar.de

Does anyone care to investigate the situation further, and add relevant links to the article? -- Zelaron 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Unfortunately, there are problems with WP:COI and WP:VANITY as well. --Alan Au 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being in the top 500,000 asserts absolutely zero importance. If Wikipedia had pages for the top 500,000 web sites, it would have about 490,000 more articles. -- Kicking222 04:01, 5 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low Google, low Alexa (~430,000), no notability. -- Kicking222 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the most self-defeating argument for notability I've seen in a long time. Opabinia regalis 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was thinking the exact same thing as Opabinia regalis. Resolute 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. User:Zelaron makes a good point, but the forum still doesn't seem quite notable enough. Oh, and the article should actually link to the forum. JIP | Talk 05:45, 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. JoshuaZ 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema Trio

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, but asserts a small amount of notoriety and as such does not fall under WP:CSD A7. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 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, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 532 ghits. MER-C 07:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and none of their listed achievements really sound like much more than "Battle of the Bands"-esque stuff. -Elmer Clark 23:39, 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. Punkmorten 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J E Houston, Minister

Non notable. Presumably we don't need a list of every dead clergyman there's ever been? Chris 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed afd.--Andeh 18:08, 22 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed some similar articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Blair, Minister and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robertson, Minister. -Elmer Clark 00:29, 6 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. Punkmorten 10:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floundur Productions

Vanity. Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 21:18, 25 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, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:45, 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 move to Dance terms. --Keitei (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of dance terms

This is a useless, orphaned disambiguation page. I can't imagine anyone wanting to link to it, as the two links listed would most likely be found through a search, and used instead. This was nominated using WP:PROD, but the tag was removed. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Both of the linked articles are well-populated, and this serves well enough of as a disambig. Redundant it may be, but that's not a reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 23 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orphan status shows lack of utility to article editors. --Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/cleanup. Possibly useful as a disambiguation page, if it was improved.
  • Delete and create a disambiguation page. Article name is misleading as there are no terms on the page. Ramsquire 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Dance terms where it might hypothetically be a useful disambiguation page. --Hyperbole 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per HB. Arbusto 01:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per HB --The Way 09:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Dance terms or Delete due to lack of articles linking to this page. SkerHawx 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless orphan, TewfikTalk 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per HB Noroton 22:20, 10 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 speedily deleted by Eagle 101. MER-C 06:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Room 27: The Filipino Entertainment Community

This article does not pass WP:WEB. Whispering(talk/c) 13:17, 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, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:33, 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 speedily deleted by Alphachimp. MER-C 06:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romey Creek

Almost certainly a hoax (read the text). Article never defines the whole term, just each term (e.g. Romey and Creek) Patstuart 04:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jesus F'ing Christ, there has to be some speedy deletion criteria for this. Are the paragraphs just cut-and-pasted together from random unrelated articles? -- Kicking222 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to put this article up for db-nonsense, see if the admin's take it/ -Patstuart 06:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it worked. -Patstuart 06:04, 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 redirect per JIP. Woad Raider is now prodded (most likely by Glendoremus). Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settler Wagon

Does not need its own page. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no it certainly does not need its own page, as a fictional unit. If it were real, then it would have its own article. JIP | Talk 05:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conestoga wagon, since this is probably what people will be thinking about when they think of a "settler wagon." --Hyperbole 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Age of Empires 3. Even if you were a fan of the game, it doesn't seem to be significant. Here's another one that probably deserves the same--Woad Raider. Glendoremus 03:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this deserved its own article, then EVERY unit would deserve its own article. DELETE! Nate 17:56, 8 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 10:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of mounted rifle regiments in the Canadian Expeditionary Force

Just a glorified disambig that just gives red links. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - useless list. MER-C 04:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless list. JIP | Talk 05:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unless somebody has any intention of creating the articles linked from the page. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an abandoned list of redlinks. If articles on these regiments are ever created, a replacement list can easily be created. Resolute 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above. Luke! 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redlist, TewfikTalk 02:46, 10 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 10:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commendo

Article makes no assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP. --Alan Au 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • External references being added. Hope these will meet the notability assertions. --Erik Hoogerhuis 22 September 2006
  • Keep. I see enough to satisfy WP:CORP, though feel the article is vanity cos, let's face it, it is written as a PR piece by Commendo and by Erik Hoogerhuis - part of company (0.9 probability), which is allowed, though inadvisable. The article is in need of a serious cleanup (I tried with the ext refs, and also killed the multiple links to the corporate website so it not passes WP:NOT a linkfarm), and wikification, but it and Commendo itself do qualify for their place here. Fiddle Faddle 23:01, 22 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Erik, all of the sources that you put in, in order: #1 is the corporate site, which is a primary source. Encyclopedias being tertiary sources do not use primary sources, being original research. However, it is okay as an external link. #2 and #10 is just a partner-program mention, which is considered a "trivial mention" under the verifiability criteria. #3 and #4 are real articles, but they too mention Commendo in passing (there was around 1-2 sentences on the company). Moreover #4 is directly from a Commendo employee, which is a primary source. #5 and #6 are wikis, not reliable (no fact-checking process at all). The press coverage is usually quoted from press releases issued by the company, and therefore is also a primary source. #7 and #11 are also only trivial mentions, and while #8 is a substantial article, it establishes the notability of Reynaldo Gil, not Commendo. What you need is a magazine or newspaper article whose subject is the company in question. ColourBurst 07:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. Recury 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, fails WP:CORP
  • Delete does not meet notability stds.Glendoremus 03:05, 10 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 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UngBDSM

Procedural nomination. Was an A7 candidate, but contested by author of article. Appearing on Norwegian national radio is an assertion of notability and thus A7 does not apply. Neutral for me. ColourBurst 04:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems like a notable organisation to me. JIP | Talk 05:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 Google hits (and I ran both a .co.uk Google and a .no one) -- Steel 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The webpages are so new, they haven't been indexed yet. Also many BDSM sites do not allow indexing -- Magggg 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appearing on Norwegian national radio is an assertion of notability, but not a very strong one. Doesn't seem to be notable even in the community and certainly not in general. Recury 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They can assert it, but they haven't proven it. --Aaron 18:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiable sources to prove they meet WP:WEB. (and may I just add BDSM for 16 year olds ewww...) Wildthing61476 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first the minimum age was 18 years, but we felt 16 years old should rather be allowed to get information from us, then from other, less positive sources Magggg 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Mark Foley scandal and delete. --Aaron 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (Just kidding!)[reply]
  • Comment: How is this BDSM organisation significantly less notable than, say, SMFR? No one is questioning the notability of SMFR. Yet I'm the only user who has ever non-trivially edited that article, its Alexa ranking is over 1'760'000, and apart from the very first Google hits it gets (its official website and the Wikipedia article I wrote about it), by far the most are false hits, because the abbreviation SMFR has dozens of meanings. All mainstream media attention SMFR has ever had is a few, extremely short, mentions of its club nights in Helsingin Sanomat, and lately a brief article explaining the BDSM scene from an outsider's point of view. JIP | Talk 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You make a strong case to nominate SMFR for deletion then too, unless there is another reason the group is notable. Wildthing61476 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, SMFR is by far the most famous BDSM organisation in the entire city of Helsinki. It is the only public one, and the only one known to mainstream media. SMFR, founded in 1996, is a legally registered organisation (RY, ryhmäyhdistys). It is one of the two Finnish BDSM organisations to have its own closed discussion forum on Tuntematon Maa. JIP | Talk 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the clarification then. Wildthing61476 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feel free to delete the article, if you think it's not notable enough. I'll recontribute when there is more documentation of notability available. :-) Magggg 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn which fails WP:WEB, TewfikTalk 02:51, 10 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 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illarion

The entry fails to meet the requirements of WP:SOFTWARE and does not provide any reliable sources. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The article claims that the game is small, which isn't a good start for establishing notability. When I went to the website, it had 20 people logged in, which would seem to reinforce that, and a Google turned up applicable results, but I don't see any that are major independent reviews - this has 49 votes, but only 3 comments, but notes it has been around since 1980 giving it quite some longevity by the standards of the RPG world. If it were more well known/had more reliable sources, I'd say a rewrite to include them and make it less of an ad, but without those, weak delete. --Mnemeson 11:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Lots of comments here, though some are probably repeats. It's rated 66 out of 100 here. The 1980 date at rpgdot.com seems wrong. The game was in version 0.2 in 2000 and is now in version 0.98. (A long beta!) Michael Kinyon 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --andrewI20Talk 04:42, 5 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has a large community but they aren't all on often, which suits the type of game it is. But the game recieves frequent updates and is notable in the MMORPG world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falco1029 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established here or in the article. Recury 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa rating of 685,763 --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability (which it also fails), TewfikTalk 02:54, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-semantics

Original research; no, that's not quite right: original thought, and exceedingly deep thought at that. Or anyway exceedingly deep thought by high-school standards. An essay. Although the string "meta-semantics" is to be found in Google, there's no reason there to think that any real philosopher (as opposed to blogger who may have had one toke or two) uses it in this way. And no references are given. -- Hoary 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete duuuuude. What does meaning... mean? What does deleting mean? What do words mean? This is deep stuff. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Word. JIP | Talk 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meta-delete per above. MER-C 06:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. --Hyperbole 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is lame. --Terence Ong (T | C) 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable crankery. There's an important issue here, but it's already covered in Meaning (linguistics). Sam Clark 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete However, the "important issue" is not covered in Meaning (linguistics). So called "meta-semantics" appears to have more to do with the breakdown of communication than it does actual meaning of linguistics. Nevertheless, one must have verifiable sources, of which this has none. 66.41.167.132 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this edit, a different IP changed "Delete" to "Revise". Maybe the same person, but a different IP. (Incidentally, Mr/Ms IP, while you are most welcome to comment here, unless you log in your "vote" won't count.) -- Hoary 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) revised 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when do votes by anonymous IPs not count in English Wikipedia AfD discussions? Of course votes by puppets and ballot stuffers don't count, but there's no reason to automatically disqualify all votes by anonymous IPs. On the Finnish Wikipedia, though, there is a rule that votes by anonymous IPs don't count in deletion discussions. JIP | Talk 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm surprised to read Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted....; this is not what I remembered, which is that if it came to a vote, their votes wouldn't be counted. -- Hoary 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Metasemantics" are discussed by Robert J. Stainton in the Broadview Press in an artilce titled "Philosophical perspectives on language." Peterborough, Ont. (1996).Criptopher 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh huh. What's the relationship between his discussion and the stuff that's in the article as it exists now? If the relationship is only tenuous, would you be prepared to do the necessary radical rewriting job? -- Hoary 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of those huh? Stainton equates metasemantics with social semantics, as does this article. In and of itself this source isn't nearly enough to validate the entire article; I was merely trying to help bring about a starting point. I would not be prepared to do the necessary radical rewriting job. As a bit more of an expert, maybe you are the man/woman for the job?Criptopher 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh heh, I'm a huh. I'm hardly more of an expert; very likely I'm less of one. Again, if the article is deleted that doesn't mean that a better one can't later be created. -- Hoary 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article certainly needs sources, and I'm not convinced everything on it is true however metasemantics is a real and legitimate sub-field within the philosophy of language and the term is used enough among language philosophers (including Kripke and Chomsky) that it seems to deserve its own page. However, it needs to be sourced (though there are definitely sources out there, at least for some parts of the article). Although, it should be noted that the use of the hyphen is improper, it should be metasemantics. --The Way 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've thought from the outset that yes, the term is used by philosophers as well as philosophasters; sorry I didn't make this clear. Well, one could zap the article's entire content and replace it with "A term used in the philosophy of language. {stub}"; but that seems pointless. Or could you rewrite the article afresh, while this AfD is running its course? (I'd then probably change my own vote.) NB the deletion of an article does not necessarily mean that no article with the same title should ever be written. (As many deleted articles are promotional/vanity productions and newly created articles with the same titles are mere second attempts with the same inappropriate motivation, they indeed are or should be automatically deleted; but this is a separate matter.) -- Hoary 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite, sources available on net. --MaNeMeBasat 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anybody is free to rewrite the article. If you're sure it merits rewriting and that you are qualified to rewrite it, go ahead. -- Hoary 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR essay, without prejudice to qualified recreation (per Hoary). Sandstein 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the term may be verifiable, but the content of this article isn't, TewfikTalk 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, present incarnation not worth salvaging. Choess 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a better recreation would be great. --Dom 12:57, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton morris

non-notable, except for his father. Does that even count? Nekohakase 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • dont merge this, just keep it, or delete it, but dont merge it, he seems notable to me
  • Sounds like a good merge candidate to me. JYolkowski // talk 15:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JYolkowski. —pink moon1287 14:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - merging one person into another is not good policy and it just ducks the issue. This guy is plainly NN. BlueValour 03:42, 1 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to his daddy. JIP | Talk 05:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the arguments listed below, I've become convinced that it should not be merged. Delete as a non-notable actor. JIP | Talk 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete theres scant evidence of notability, I prefer delete. Not to closing admin: merge if you must.-- danntm T C 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no point merging anything, besides being related this person has nothing to do with his father. —Xezbeth 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. And dont merge with his father as it is only a related article because of them being related, not on any important level --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad actors are non notable. No one in the public recognizes them. No imdb hit for him --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 23:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator as a not yet notable actor. Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 9 October 2006
  • Delete as nn - the only material that can/should be merged is that he exists, TewfikTalk 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and not verifiable.Glendoremus 03:17, 10 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. I would say there isn't agreement on whether to keep or merge the article, and the merge camp doesn't seem to have a unified voice on where to merge that would be appropriate. The best solution is to keep for now; merging can be done through {{mergeto}} (or just done boldly). Mangojuicetalk 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nose grease

PROD removed by author. Unencyclopedic, joke/trivia article with a single reference (which pertains to something appropriate for a trivia book), otherwise unverifiable folklore and college drinking humor. Delete. MCB 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • College drinking yes, humor no -- nose grease really can be used as a defoaming agent and really does reduce head on beer; it is verifiable to anyone with access to both a nose and beer. Nose grease as an antireflective coating was a major step forward in optics design -- Lyot's coronagraph was astounding in its day and led (indirectly) to the development of antireflective interference coatings. keep. zowie 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verifiable to anyone with access to a nose and beer" is (1) not what Wikipedia means by verifiable, and is a cute drinking trick that might belong in a trivia book, not an encyclopedia. Same with the reference to the optical use, which is clearly some sort of science humor, unless there was something alleged to be unique about the properties of this material, which has not been shown. And "can be used as a light-duty lubricant (for example to stop door hinges from creaking)"? Come on. That's completely unremarkable. What's next, toe-jam as insulation? --MCB 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I wrote the original stub but did not add the beer reference. It is indeed quite remarkable that the human body yields small quantities of durable lubricant. zowie 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to me that I've heard of this before (though using a different name than "nose grease", involving the syllable "septa-") and Google Scholar actually yields a few related hits under that name:
  • Various methods are suggested by electron microscopists such as buying only one brand of glass slides, rubbing the slides with nose grease prior to dipping... (from Biological Electron Microscopy: Theory, Techniques, and Troubleshooting, (Page 243) by Michael J Dykstra & Laura E Reuss.
  • Clean the collet with steel wool, and add a dab of nose grease (body oil from your face) to keep the shank from freezing up again. (from Trim Carpentry Techniques: Installing Doors, Windows, Base, and Crown (Page 35) by Craig Savage

--Calton | Talk 06:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merge and Redirect sebum unless and until something more coherent develops that makes it worth a separate article. The stuff appears to be also known as "nose oil" or "squalene", and is useful for lubricating watches (THAT'S where I heard of it). Looks real. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. Zunaid 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it does offer what appears to be a journal reference, that's um, nothing to sneeze at. (Ba-Dum-Bump!) Seriously though, Redirect to squalene seems to be in order. --Roninbk t c e # 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The journal reference is bogus. I looked and so did the article author and we both agree that the reference to nose grease isn't actually there. But even if it was, is it actually encyclopedic? I think it's borderline at best. IMO, if you take out the folksy 'uses' for nose grease, you get a stub that's no different from a stub called 'Forehead grease' or 'Chin grease' or (my favourite) 'Chest grease'. If anything, I think the items on beer and lenses (if they can be sourced) should be in a section on sebum. Anchoress 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In five minutes, I'm finding references to nose grease in photography, in coin collecting, and in beer drinking. Seems like a notable, if weird, topic. I don't think sebum really covers the uses people have found for nose grease, and I don't think that a section about that would be appropriate for that article. --Hyperbole 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeNose grease from one particular workman was used to lubricate leaf shutters of cameras being refurbished at a factory where I once worked. Chin grease or forehead grease were not used.Merge this somewhere under body fluids or lubricants.Edison 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seem to be some real-world references beyond the novelty character of this article. LHOON 14:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable [against all odds], TewfikTalk 03:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. My issue with the article is not so much the verifiability (which remains somewhat sketchy in any case) of the individual factoids, but that they are more suited to something like 1000 Fun Facts About the Human Body than an encyclopedia. As trivia items, the strongly sourced ones deserve at most perhaps a sentence in the sebum or squalene articles. --MCB 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... Using other articles as benchmarks, one might certainly speculate that teabagging is no more notable than nose grease, except for its gross-out value. Some of the other applications probably need to be added (such as the counterfeiting etc. that can be found with Google), if the article be kept. I have not been editing it so as to allow the debate to proceed.
For what it's worth, I did hear back from Hal Zirin about his (attempted) use of nose oil at the Climax solar observatory. He certainly tried it, following in Lyot's footsteps. He wrote that he can't remember where he learned about it, but that it was certainly common knowledge in the solar observing community in the 1970s. (Hal never met Lyot directly, though they worked with many of the same people). zowie 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is, if the unsubstantiated items are removed, all that remains is a stub saying that nose grease comes from the nose. Is that encyclopedic? Anchoress 18:26, 11 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 11:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifegate

Article is about a local community church with no indication of notability outside of the local area. Lots of Lifegate churches out there, but this one doesn't appear to be terribly notable. PROD and PROD2 removed, bringing here for debate. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; barring any claim to notability (historic significance of building, first church in country, etc.), this seems to fall into the domain of "just another church," as seen many times before here on AfD. --Kinu t/c 05:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable ww2censor 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another church. --Terence Ong (T | C) 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable individual Church location. Erechtheus 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. we keep non-notable schools but not non-notable churches? --NuclearZer0 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, so notability isn't established even to the nearly non-existent degree it is claimed. GRBerry 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn with no assertion of notability, TewfikTalk 03:52, 10 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 merge, already performed. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial artificial intelligence

Neologism, unintuitive term, not notable. --Amit 05:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - surprisingly this one is covered in the Economist: [16] (subscription only). 26500 ghits. MER-C 06:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides Amazon.com and the press, has anyone else used the term to refer to something? --Amit 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a look at the ghits. MER-C 07:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is the responsibility of those who want the article to stay — to establish notability of the term, failing which the article may be deleted. GHits by itself is irrelevant. --Amit 08:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Counting Google hits is not research; and encyclopaedia articles are about subjects, not terms. Pointing to a Google search is not citing a source. Pointing to a book or an article that explains what artificial artificial intelligence is, and that discusses it, is citing a source. Uncle G 10:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jeff Bezos or Amazon Mechanical Turk. Not notable enough (yet?) to merit its own article. — QuantumEleven 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Eleven. Pavel Vozenilek 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give sources and Merge per Eleven --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged relevant content into Jeff Bezos. Redirected article to Jeff Bezos. --Amit 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this term cannot be verified as a result of appropriate science research.

    Certain computational tasks, such as indentifying whether a person in a photograph is male or female, are carried out much faster by humans than computers.

    is very disputable due to hard progress in the neural networks and pattern recognition, and stands on "one man said" statement. Tulkolahten 22:26, 9 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 redirect to List of Latin phrases (P–Z). Mangojuicetalk 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semper ubi sub ubi

Non-notable latin phrase, probably not suitable for wiktionary either and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. This can't be expanded past a dictionary definitition. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really wanted to see this entry, remembering it from a silly pub conversation. Deleting it would lose valuable, if silly, information. Merging into Bilingual Pun or Joke Latin might be justifiable. Note that one of those calling for deletion commented "It's a (bad) joke that always seems to appear in Latin textbooks". Hey, if it ALWAYS seems to appear in textbooks, maybe it should not be altogether deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.169.115.37 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 October 2006 {UTC).

  • Redirect to List of Latin phrases (P–Z), where the literal and pun meaning already exists. I was going to vote keep, since that's a long list to page through. But then I found Vice versa, a very common phrase, redirects there. Since I haven't found its origins or anything interesting on SUSU besides it naturally appearing on joke undergarments, I vote to redirect. The separate article can be recreated in the future if reliable sources indicate interesting info that expands it beyond a small list entry. TransUtopian 16:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Transutopian. Gabrielthursday 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Transutopian as long as the phrase is listed there, TewfikTalk 04:00, 10 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. Catchpole 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Haven Emerson

Does not look notable to me, was originally speedied per CSD A7, but I can see how this person could have been important. I invite further discussion on this article. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He invented or improved important medical devices including the iron lung, which have saved many lives. Much more noteworthy than pop music albums and videogame characters. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be an article that is supported with sources about a person who has done important design work if not inventing machines himself. It seems to me he passes WP:BIO. Erechtheus 06:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He has had a profound and lasting impact on medicine. His work on the iron lung alone makes him notable. Passes WP:BIO and then some. —dustmite 16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have begun a significant rewriting the article and beefed it up quite a bit. I think notability should now be readily apparent. —dustmite 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep passes WP:BIO. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He was a folk hero in the mid-twentieth century. He not only developed the iron lung but was an important figure in the development of SCUBA gear and many other respirators. --Artemis-Arethusa 18:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, clearly in line with WP:BIO, TewfikTalk 04:01, 10 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 & Redirect to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Deizio talk 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie McLean

A spokeswoman for Landmark Education (formerly known as EST) whose only claim to notability is as a talking head for a French TV documentary. Was tagged with "Prod", but removed by article creator with the comment appears in controversial France 3 documentary Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous that caused Landmark Education to leave the whole of France. Since she's not the one who caused Landmark Education to leave the whole of France, I'm not seeing the relevance there. Note: appears to be part of a whole walled garden of Landmark Education-related articles by Smeelgova (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 05:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - First of all, I resent the personal attack against this editor by User Calton|Talk. Second, the Sophie McLean article (so far) contains (3) separate referenced citations in media journal articles. Third, this article was only just started a few hours ago. Why not at the very least give it some time to see if it will be expanded upon? A search for Sophie McLean with various additional related terms yields thousands of results on Google. Surely we can afford to wait a little while to see what happens. Yours, Smeelgova 06:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • And those "personal attacks" would be what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have strived to make sure that my edits have been backed up by a trail of reputable sources and citations. I would much rather have a discussion about one particular article, than have someone insinuate something as to my edit motives. Virtually all editors stay within a small realm of editing on Wikipedia - so long as they cite referenced sources this should not be an issue. Yours, Smeelgova 06:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ah, so you'd like the smear but not actually have to back it up? Got it. Oh, and note: "lack of footnotes" wasn't why I nominated this, banging on about how many you have is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Smeelgova's treatment of McLean in that article did not strike me as POV and he appears to be editing in good faith. Calton made a comment from which the inference could be drawn that he considers Smeelgova to have a POV agenda, but while this may have been inconsiderate, it does not rise to the level of a personal attack. Just my two cents. --Hyperbole 07:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thank you for your comment with regard to "he appears to be editing in good faith." - Yours, Smeelgova 07:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Since McLean is really notable only in the context of the documentary, it stands to reason that information about her should go in that article. --Hyperbole 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree, this appears to be an intentional attack WP:WALL. The whole lot needs to go up for AfD.--Aaron 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person's history does not appear to be noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Spacefarer 11:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an appropriate encyclopedia article. Just one example is the quote they choose to use describing Ms. McLean's visit to France is from "Cult News" by Rick Ross (in itself a warning sign as Mr. Ross is one of the most extreme anti-LE advocates on the internet and is not even close to an objective source) and half the quote is about how this French expert did not "really" say it wasn't a cult. Apparently they can't read French. He said :: "« Aucun des six éléments majeurs relatifs aux sectes ne s'applique à Landmark Education »" He states that they are not a cult, or rather more rigorously that the attributes of a cult are not present. This is clearly a biased article. Alex Jackl 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the VERY least some of the NPOV aspects of this article should be moved to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous as Hyperbole suggested above. This is not about Ms. Mclean whose name is on the article only as an entry point for the author to evangalize about this French film. Alex Jackl 13:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis article has no relevance in an encyclopedia.Nsamuel 15:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nsamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • DeleteThe subject is not noteworthy for an encyclopedia. WiseWiki 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: WiseWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DaveApter. This appears to be an orchestrated campaign. --Aaron 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis editor's has a history of creating unbalanced bias article with absolutely no NPOV, not to mention the subject matter has no place in an encyclopedia. Blondie0309 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Blondie0309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Per Hyperbole's comment above: "Merge and redirect to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Since McLean is really notable only in the context of the documentary, it stands to reason that information about her should go in that article." , I have merge/redirected to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous, pending resolution of this discussion. Yours, Smeelgova 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • DeleteThe subject is not noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Sm1969 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - brenneman {L} 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AceGamez

Website, no evidence or historic or current notability provided. --Peta 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 06:30, 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 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mendillo

This is an article about a martial artist. I propose the article be deleted as it doesn't seem to meet WP:N criteria. Google only produces 44 hits and several of the hits link back to Wikipedia or other Internet wikis. I could be really wrong and misinformed, but it reads mostly like a promotional/vanity page to me. --Merkurix 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 07:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would not object to a speedy since I fail to see any real assertion of notability. PJM 12:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Badbilltucker 20:59, 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 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artie MacStrawman

An "important and entertaining fictional character": Actually, a just-invented internet meme cooked up by a blog recently. Gets ten (10) Google hits -- less than nothing for an internet meme. Was Prod'ded, but tag removed with the commment I object to deletion: the name is new, but the meme is old; give MacStrawman time and he'll get the Google rating you seek -- meaning that even the creator recognizes this as something just made up. Probably qualifies ex post facto as a speedy under new guidelines, but let me bring it here to be sure. Calton | Talk 07:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blogcruft. Danny Lilithborne 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy per WP:NFT. — QuantumEleven 09:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pete Orme 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Badbilltucker 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is voting open to anyone? I vote keep it! The reason I created the article is I think the (very new) character provides a catchy and relatable name for a phenomenon that is very familiar. I'd love to see an article on the phenomenon that Artie personifies, and I think you're right, he should be a small part of that article. I was just hoping to get the conversation started. I hope I haven't done anything wrong. I'm relatively inexperienced, Wikipediawise, but it's my hope that contributions from casual users are as welcomed as those from longtime contributors. The more voices, the better. I certainly didn't intend to disrespect Wikipedia by adding the article. I love the project, and I think the more information it has, the better. Jameson 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions from casual users are always welcome; using Wikipedia to promote something you just made up, isn't. --Calton | Talk 23:41, 9 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, after discounting a few of the !votes from non-established Wikipedians. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marapets

I know this page has a reasonable length history. But it seems to me to be simple advertising, it certainly contains some non NPOV components. I wonder whether it satisfys WP:WEB? I dont think in it's present form it does and unless notability can be asserted it should probably be deleted. MidgleyDJ 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Marapets should be included in the nomination; its existence depends on that of Marapets. ColourBurst 08:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 88500 ghits, nothing in the first twenty that makes it notable. MER-C 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came across this a few days ago, and considered nominating it to AfD. In the end I decided not to because of its lengthy history and Ghits... but just like you I have strong doubts about its notability. Alexa ranking of 19,052.--Húsönd 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With over 880,000 members, I don't think you can say the site lacks notability. Powerpets and Zetapets, other popular virtual pet sites, have fewer members yet no one has said anything about their articles. Kleptomaniac Can Opener 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The existence of other articles that should be deleted should not affect the notability of this one. Sometimes things slip through the cracks; thank you for bringing these articles to our attention, because their notability seems suspect as well. However, WP:WEB has no membership count in its criteria; it does, however, suggest third-party reliable sources, such as magazine and newspaper articles. ColourBurst 01:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Powerpets is up for deletion here and I just tagged Zetapets as a speedy A7 because it failed to assert notability. MER-C 05:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you ask me, I don't think it matters! It should be kept, along with Zeta and Powerpets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.123.223 (talk • contribs)
Note This was 84.160.123.223's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has some large notability counts, Alexa ratings, et cetera. On another note, Marapets has been putting out ads in Google lately, I'm seeing them from serebii.net and its forums. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment serebii.net's forums are not a reliable source of information, especially when it's coming from Marapets' operators. ColourBurst 01:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're Google ads, not affiliation. Serebii is actually a Pokémon site, ColourBurst. The ads pitch it as an alternative to Neopets. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Second largest virtual pet site in terms of members, decent Alexa ranking. The article does need a lot of cleanup however. Kariià Deranged Ramblings 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ads in google and membership (size) dont qualify as criteria for notability under WP:WEB. Are there multiple, nontrivial independant publications about Marapets? MidgleyDJ 20:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The largest non-conglomerate site, since Neopets (the largest) is owned by Viacom. That's an upgrade, isn't it? Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can't see why people are trying to get rid of a site entry... I thought the idea of this site is a place that people can come to get some reference information about sites... Isn't what this entry is doing... Giving us information about Marapets... I vote to keep it!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.209.173 (talk) .
Note This was 24.36.209.173's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The definition of "information" on Wikipedia is information from third-party reliable sources. Since you're so confident that this is information, perhaps you can provide us with some of these third-party reliable sources. In addition, this discussion is not a vote. ColourBurst 01:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although this is the only other major virtual pet site besides Neopets, it has a small amount of Google Hits: 103,000 results. And looking through them, barely any of them have anything to do with the website. Though the article could be merged into an article about virtual petsites. (Though I can't find any with actual information on them, just links to different ones) Don't forget about List Of Marapets if this article gets chopped. -HurricaneJeanne 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --65.96.154.117 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it currently fails WP:WEB, TewfikTalk 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may seem a little biased as I am a member, but Mara has a good history, and is the second largest petsite on the Internet. We could add some more citations to make it less like opinions and have some cleanup, but other than that it looks fine to me.
    May I ask why Subeta is not on the list for deletion? - Torika
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Frankfurt Rhein-Main (ISFRM)

nn school, Google 4hits--Godsl 07:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — Godsl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. 1. This is an International Baccalaureate school. 2. You are searching for the English translated name, try "Internationale Schule Frankfurt-Rhein-Main" on google.de instead. 3. This is well written article, not a stub. 4. Secondary schools are generally accepted as notable by most. 5. It passes the proposed WP:SCHOOLS, meeting criteria #1 and #4. Silensor 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you expand on the claim that it meets criteria 4? It isn't clear to me what is so unique here. JoshuaZ 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I just now realized that this is a single purposed account, the only 3 edits are related to the listing of this page on AFD. Oh well. Silensor 08:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MER-C 08:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Silensor, but it's a press-releasey article. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for now. It isn't an International Bacclaureat school but is "applying for the International Baccalaureate program" and even then that by itself would not confer notability, IB is very common. WP:SCHOOLS does not have a consensus behind it (and I fail to see how it meets criteria 1 and 4 anyways). However, the large number of German google hits makes this only a weak delete because that may give some indication of notability. JoshuaZ 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Silensor. bbx 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if I have a vote as article creator (if not, take this as a Comment), but I did say on the article's talk page that I am still working on it and trying to make it read less as an advertisement. *** The school is almost done applying for IB and is already offering it to students in Grades 9-11 if they want to do an additional 13th year. (I will be one of the first ones taking IB as I am currently in Grade 11) The official visit from the IB committee is on October 20 after which the school will be an "official" IB school. Also, this is one of the very few articles about a SABIS school, the system itself having no article at all. *** Regarding the name, the article's current title is how it was listed on List of international schools, so I used it. The school's official name is also listed in the university-box3 template as "Internationale Schule Frankfurt-Rhein-Main". --Zabadab 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 14:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep number of google hits is not a valid deletion criteria, especially when one does not search under the correct name as Silensor showed.  ALKIVAR™ 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. Accurizer 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy Fg2 00:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (ISFRM) does not need to be there. Resolute 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and I dont believe in WP:SCHOOLS, if you cant prove notability you shouldnt have an article. --NuclearZer0 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It is one of the only three international schools in the Frankfurt area. Notable enough? --Zabadab 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zabadab and rename (drop the ISFRM), looks to be notable enough. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 9 October 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 - verifiability is non-negotiable, and all research in this AfD into verifiability counts against it. The existence of other sources is asserted, but their details have not been given so we can form no judgement on them (and as the credibility of the sources which have been given have been cast into doubt, such assertions count for even less than usual). Bear in mind that if a sourced article can in fact be written, this deletion of an unsourced article does not prejudice against it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis Corporation of America

non-notable [17]--Syunrou 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the corporation does seem to have been involved in a fair number of legal cases surrounding cannabis use in the US, so may be borderline notable (despite low number of Google hits). However, the article is utterly appallingly bad. — QuantumEleven 09:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as what appears to be a notable part of the history of cannabis legality in America. The article needs a lot of work. --Hyperbole 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hyperbole, appears notable, however severly clean it up and if its not in say a month delete it. Also some sources on that case would be nice. --NuclearZer0 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while the assertion of notability is made, this entry is entirely devoid of sources. TewfikTalk 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources whatsoever, and 26 non-Wikipedia Google hits. I would have a hard time proving that it exists, especially if we wanted reliable, notable, and verifiable sources, much less proving its importance. It's a badly written article in any case. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 13 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting following remarks that this corporation might not exist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; possible hoax? Vectro 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AOL user 64.12.116.203 (talk · contribs) left the following message on my talk page. Vectro 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know virtually nothing about Wiki, and less about HTML and so I'm sorry to barge in, but this is Laurence McKinney and Cannabis Corporation was not only real, there are plenty of references to it. That was a bad little paragraph, I have no idea who wrote it, I cleaned it up, added a ref ... why didn't you just drop my name into Google? You would have found lots of stuff .. try Google image ...there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.203 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 October 2006
  • Keep and cleanup. Not a hoax. Some of the sources in the linked Google search are reliable, non-trivial, independent coverage of notable events in the biomedical, legal, and legislative fields. The sources need to be added and relevance explained. I'd start work on it now if I weren't behind an overly censorious filter that blocks most of the legitimate sources for this topic. Barno 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give an example of one of these reliable sources? Dmcdevit·t 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • [18] is an academic paper presented at the Maxie Richards Foundation Conference, Glasgow, Oct 2003. The reference to CCA is in passing (and thus not sufficient by itself), but it refers to a noteworthy attempt at getting the USA federal drug-enforcement regimen changed in how marijuana would be controlled. There are also mainstream-media (and less-citeable special-interest media) reports which feature CCA's efforts at legal change and research into synthesis of the active component. Barno 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of non-trivial independent coverage. Cynical 11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AOL user 64.12.116.133 (talk · contribs) added two offline citations to the article, but researching them failed to show them as valid. I have moved the questionable citations to the talk page; see my comments there. Vectro 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cynical. Valrith 20:53, 23 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsim

Non-notable, overblown screensaver that claims to be edutainment. Danny Lilithborne 08:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Kalani [talk] 08:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As an Earthsim user I can say that Earthsim is not really a screensaver, it's a virtual globe system that just happens to have a screensaver option. The whole thing is actually pretty unique. I think the notable bit comes from it's creator, Servan, the Direct 3D guy. Simon531.
    • Comment The above vote is from the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Whilst I am a contributor to the article, I am also a regular user of the software, who knows it well, and believe the point of view on which this discussion is being based (stated at the top of this page) is inaccurate and inappropriatly emotive. Simon531.
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete i haven't contribued before but thought i'd better stick up for this one. i think earthsim is pretty big. if you google for virtual globes you'll find it mentioned in all of the first three entries. and on www.virtualglobes.org it appears to be earthsim month this month. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.201.200.223 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 October 2006.
I tried a Google search on "virtual globe" and did not see Earthsim mentioned in the first three items except at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry for virtual globe (but this could be because I am using the UK version of Google). George J. Bendo 10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I believe that the article itself is likely more of a stub than an article, but I do not believe that it warrants deletion. I ask that those who are in favor of deletion visit the actual website, and educate themselves about the premise of this virtual globe. It is true that it is a commercial application, and as many commercial endeavours one of the goals is of course to turn a profit. On the other hand today's children are growing up with MTV and console games filling their time, and education has taken a distant back-seat to many other leisure activities. As a parent, and as an educator, a tool like Earthsim is invaluable to engage children into a learning process that utilizes the same elements that their console games utilize. There is no doubt that the current Earthsim is presenting a tiny fraction of Earth science that can be covered. There is also no doubt that this tool could benefit from closer ties with educators for the purpose of content development. Most importantly there is no doubt that any project whose goal it is to provide you with an entertaining method to teach your kids a thing or two about Earth science, any such project deserves your support. Please consider that the WP recommendation is revision before deletion. Perhaps this article could be revised in such a way to outline the science education goals of Earthsim to make the WP entry more relevant to WP's mission. 64North 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. What this means is that we can't go to the actual website and use that as a source (because the source is primary). We need verification from third-party reliable sources. The WP recommendation is indeed revision, but only with material derived from secondary sources, not primary ones. If secondary sources cannot be found, then deletion is the correct answer. Wikipedia's mission is not to push a point of view (that Earthsim is better than MTV or console games), unless somebody else writes about it first; otherwise, this violates WP:NPOV. It is also up to the people who don't want this deleted to provide these sources, as they want the article not to be deleted. ColourBurst 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I really do understand the tertiary source concept. I also understand the NPOV and didn't mean to imply the article should reflect my personal opinion. However, my personal view was stated in regards to deletion to illustrate a potential benefit of Earthsim that may merit to keep the article around if the article were to be edited and perhaps marked as stub. I also believe that the user who asked for deletion did so in such a way that does not follow accepted Wikiquette and he certainly did not follow nomination guidelines which state that someone should "investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it". Be that as it may, the issue is Earthsim itself, and not the behavior of the one who started the deletion process. I am certainly giving the requester the benefit of a doubt as his way of expressing himself may not have been intentional but rather caused by his Bipolar Type I condition. For those who are familiar with WP's inner workings. What would need to be done to convert the article into such a stub that the entry would for the time being be spared from deletion, and deletion can be revisited at a later date should no sufficient progress toward expanding the article be made? 64North 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, I see some voted Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. However, WP:SOFTWARE states that software entries are notable when "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor". Considering that Earthsim is a core product of Servan Keondjian's QubeSoft, and Keondjian himself is notable for he is largely responsible for all things Direct3D, those votes that reference WP:SOFTWARE should really be changed to "Do not delete", no? 64North 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. Even if Keondjian is notable (and I believe he is), he does not automatically confer notablity on whatever it is he does. Believe it or not, this is how it works for everybody. It is the sorry truth that very notable individuals usually stand a better chance of being covered by respected sources even if they don't deserve it, so it might seem like anything that Steve Jobs does automatically qualifies as notable, but in reality, he just gets followed around by thousands of respected newspapers and articles hanging on his every word. Unfortunately, Mr. Keondjian must work a little harder for his coverage - but if what he is doing is truely notable, it will come - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I found [19] which probably weakly qualifies as a WP:RS. Thats all I could find. The product seems real enough, the creator has solid credentials, and could possibly be unique in the quickly saturating market of earth and mapping software, but the article reads like a brochure at a trade show, and falls way short of providing any substantial information. If another WP:RS is found, I would begrudgingly change my vote to Keep pending some heavy editing. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if the software is educational, the article is still an advertisement. It is not encyclopedic knowledge. George J. Bendo 10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.36.87.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - less than 1000 ghits.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - I've edited the article to stop it looking like a sales pitch. I don't believe exceeding 1000 ghits is any sort of Wikipedia rule (and I got just short of 10,000) and from a quick google search I found the following references[20], [21] and [22] - DunderBlock.
  • Comment I think you're misunderstanding what a reference is. A trivial mention of what games ATI certifies doesn't say anything about Earthsim (and certain does not say anything _in_ the article). A reference should support the article's contents. In addition, blogs are not reliable sources either (that applies to everything from virtualglobes) because anybody can upload them without any quality control whatsoever. The CPU mag mention seems promising - all we need is some more articles like that. ColourBurst 21:24, 9 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 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert (Bob) Clarence

This misnamed article is about the young son of naturalist Steve Irwin. While it is a tragic tale, I don't think that having famous parents and having your sad lament for the loss of your parent quoted makes a two-year old notable. David | Talk 08:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no redirect here as the search term is unlikely. Punkmorten 09:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. —dustmite 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- poorly titled, not notable for anything other than being born to famous parents; might very well be recreated some time down the track when he becomes notable for his own reasons but it's far too early for an article now. -- Longhair\talk 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having a famous father doesn't really make you notable. Lankiveil 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and long list of precedent regarding children of celebrities. --bainer (talk) 00:54, 8 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 Redirect to Kingdom Hearts. Redirects are cheap. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gummi ship

Non-notable item in a video game. Virtually no encyclopedic information in the article that merits being merged into the main article on Kingdom Hearts. — QuantumEleven 08:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, non-notable. At best, it can be mentioned briefly in the Kingdom Hearts article, but in no way does it deserve its own article (or even its own section). Kalani [talk] 08:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whatever page would be relevant. Danny Lilithborne 11:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very major part of two of the most successful and important games of all time. Google hits through the roof, and no lack of verifiable sources (It has 3 current Google News hits). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you serious, Andrew? I generally agree with the vast majority of what you say, but you're trying to tell me that the Kingdom Hearts games are "two of the most successful and important games of all-time"?! Yes, they've certainly sold a few million copies each, but I don't think they would be classified as among the most successful, and I'm not sure anyone on earth, including the people at Disney and Square, would consider them among the most important. -- Kicking222 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. KH1 is among the top 10 bestselling games for the PS2, and probably the top 30 or so in console gaming history. A game is considered a blockbuster success if it sells 1 million copies ever, and KH2 sold that many in its first three days of release alone and is expected to sell 10 million copies worldwide! I guess that "importance" is subjective, but I still stand by it: this is an important series. Here, for example, is an article on how KH pulled Disney out of its cultural slump. I count 130 current Google news stories, and 1,330 stories in Google's News Archive. We can even find (*gasp!*) academic sources for it: It's a case study in Glassner's book Interactive Storytelling: Techniques for 21st Century Fiction, as well as the textbook Technology, Literacy and Learning: A Mulimodal Appraoch by Carey Jewitt. And I won't even get into the fan-community side of things. Trust me: Kingdom Hearts is both influential and important. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge into the KH games if necessary, delete otherwise. All but a few sentences of the article violate WP:NOT a game guide. The rest still just relate to a single aspect of a game series. -- Kicking222 14:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as minor part of a videogame series that simply isn't important enough, even in the context of the game, to merit a standalone article. As a fan of the series I have to disagree with Andrew that this is a major part of the game that warrents an article... to me this is like writing a separate article on the "Pooh" mini-games or the KH2 Alantica song system. It's not that I have a strong opposition to a redirect or merge, but in the context of the games this is like a "mini-game" of sorts (that unlocks boards) and with 2 chapters in the game that both have the Gummi Ship system there is no logical redirect target.--Isotope23 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do agree that the Gummi Ship is a fairly notable part of the Kingdom Hearts series, but this is not the way it should be presented in an encyclopaedia. I think the Kingdom Hearts articles do a well enough job describing this aspect of the games, and even if Gummi Ship does deserve its own article, this particular incarnation is pretty much worthless and beyond repair. It's not even pretending to be encyclopaedia content, it's like a how-to or a FAQ. ~ lav-chan @ 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect or merge, whichever. Cover this topic in the article for the game if necessary. Recury 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Put it into the KH article and eat it. --Aaron 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, whether it's deleted or merged or whatever. This is already covered in Kingdom Hearts and is easily one of the most noted parts of that game in reviews; many reviews boiled down to "This is a neat blend of Disney and Square, but the Gummi Ship sucks." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the Man in Black; a mention in the main article ought to do it, and it can always be re-split if that section gets too unwieldy. The article as is is not worth merging anywhere. Sandstein 21:08, 7 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. Catchpole 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

98lite

Software, no evidence of notability. --Peta 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - this software is sortof notable as it proved that IE could be removed from Windows without breaking Windows (something that Microsoft claimed was impossible). This was of important in the antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft in the US and Europe. However, the article doesn't mention this (I think it should, in order to assert its notability). — QuantumEleven 09:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, agree with Quantum about (modest) historical importance. --Dhartung | Talk 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember this causing quite a bit of a stir when first released, with a higher-than-average amount of press attention. A quick googling produces plenty of articles and reviews. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does assert or anyway imply notability, although this may not be obvious to those who weren't interested in browsers at the time. The "browser wars", as they were melodramatically termed, were important as is suggested by the amounts of money involved. Incidentally, the page does not read like an advert to me. -- Hoary 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it does not prove what it's claimed to prove. In fact, the way Brooks had to do this proves what Microsoft said in the first place Gazpacho 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per QuantumEleven, Dhartung, Starblind. I thought the article adequately made the point that this was software which Microsoft claimed in court couldn't be done, but if that needs to be made more explicit, then I have no objection to someone rewriting it.-gadfium 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rewrite. Much of the article could actually be considered an article on Shane Brooks (e.g., "Shane Brooks believes that Windows 98 has many advantages to its predecessor..."). However, it seems sufficiently notable, 118,000 google hits and its effect in countering microsoft claims. Still, it needs work and some outside sources would be nice. Cool3 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has historical importance in regards to the Microsoft antitrust case. Needs work, but AfD Is Not Cleanup™. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite as per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 8 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.

Ecopave Australia

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-prog

Music genre pages seem to cause more problems than anything else on Wikipedia! These particular terms ("post-prog" and "exo-prog") do not appear to have an established, consistent, verifiable usage and the current article is inconsistent and does not cite sources. Nothing links here (although New Prog did). A Google search suggests "post-prog" is inconsistently used and little used, but when it is, it tends to be used synonymously with post-rock, contrary to what the article says. "Exo-prog" is very little used: the one clear usage I found links it with neo-prog, which is consistent with the third paragraph of the article, but inconsistent with the first two. I've previously tagged the article as needing clean-up and citations, but neither have been forthcoming. I thought about trying to clean it up myself, but couldn't think of anything to write beyond "These terms are inconsistently and little used." The people who have added most content to the page haven't done anything else on Wikipedia. Bondegezou 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologisms. --Dhartung | Talk 10:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced, not particularly coherent, no sign that any of the bands mentioned are widely described in these terms. Sam Clark 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no verification for popular use of the term. I thought I invented this word when I used it a few years ago to describe Ween. --Joelmills 23:58, 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. Consensus is pretty overwhelming for keep after the article was rewritten. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Charms

Let me head off the usual "this was just AfD'd" at the pass: the rationale for the first AfD was essentially casting moral judgment over the subject rather than discussing the merits of the article; the crux of the nominator's rationale was, "what if some woman comes here and thinks "id like to be like that" and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Wikipedia?" It became a discussion of taste rather than notability. This AfD nomination, on the other hand, has to do with our guidelines and policies. So, without further ado: the article on Chelsea Charms fails both in terms of establishing the notability of the subject, and by our policies of citation and verification. First, to her notability, the only suggestion of notability is that Chelsea Charms has a larger-than-average set of augmented breasts. The article makes no claim that they are record-setting, in any way, and in fact specifically states that they aren't, but just catalogs the various operations she's allegedly had done to them. Her IMDb page has a grand total of two films, so that's not where the notability is coming from. And then there is the second, major major problem with this article: there's not a single reference or citation in the whole thing. By my count, the article makes nearly 20 separate assertions of fact without a single reference as to where these facts came from (and that's not counting the excess verbiage about the general physiology behind breast enlargement, which probably wouldn't belong in the article anyway). Delete as unverifiable, and even if it were verifiable, as simply not notable. JDoorjam Talk 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for a lack of verifiability, although the article (currently) lists her assets as "among the largest in the world", which isn't exactly "specifically stating that they aren't the biggest in the world". Whether something like this (the article comments that these things are usually exaggerated) could ever make someone notable in and of itself is a different matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Re: "specifically stating," the fourth paragraph says "Several other women in the big-bust entertainment industry also have string implants, including Minka and Maxi Mounds (who holds the Guinness World Record for augmented breast size)." JDoorjam Talk 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No comment on anything else. Danny Lilithborne 11:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No verifiable sources, and the article even admits the one stat people might care about (the size) is "hugely overstated". Most of the article, in addition to being unverified, is just plain icky: who besides the plastic-raincoat crowd would care that she "...began developing in the fourth grade"? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Hugely overstated", wow there are SO many levels of puns I could go into, but I'll be good for now... Doesn't meet WP:V, doesn't even meet WP:PORNBIO, the only thing close to verifiability is the image, which only serves to verify that they are indeed quite large. --Roninbk t c e # 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double-D Delete What you think I wasn't going to pass up on a joke? Seriously though, no verifiable sources, and doesn't meet WP:PORN.
  • Keep Once again I am proven wrong, the revision looks good to me. (So does hshe, different story however) Wildthing61476 18:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep after looking at the revision, I can't see a good reason to delete this page. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears well-written, but with the complete lack of sources, it's potentially total fiction. Unless third-party sources can be provided to prove accuracy (and genuine fame), the article should be deleted. --Elonka 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roninbk and Wildthing. Tabercil 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, she fails WP:BIO since we don't have any third-party reliable sources writing about her. That's really all that matters. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Re-evaluate Keep The new citation proved verifiability. Google hits also comfirmed her notability as a big-bust performer who is notable in her field. I think this article should be kept now. Valoem talk 01:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems there are also a lot of copyvio issues to be looked at. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Chelsea Charms is notable as the woman who has the largest breasts as a result of the "silly string" implantation surgery. Although I agree that her article is not as well annotated as it should be, I also must note that this is mainly because of time constraints on my part. (I was not the original author of the article but I do contribute to it from time to time.) As for the fact that the IMDB page on her only shows two films, how many films does IMDB show for James Dean, for instance? Remember that IMDB isn't the most accurate source although it is widely quoted -- they make plenty of omissions in their filmographies. A look at her own website shows that she has appeared in many more than just two films, so that it not a valid reason for deleting her article here. You want third-party, reliable sources on her? Give me a bit of time to compile them and add them to her WP article. -- Jalabi99 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Comparing Chelsea Charms to James Dean is absurd. (Dean, FWIW, has 30 films listed at IMDb.) Her article currently contradicts what you've said: she does not have the largest breasts, nor even the largest via the polypropylene string method. JDoorjam Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I think wiki shold have certain objective criteria for deletions. For instance, a google of "chelsea charms" as of Sat Oct7 2006, brings up ~ 200,000+ hits. While we all know about spamm, stuffing, bots , etc, at a certain point, if a person has a enough presence, that in and of itself, even if it is purely a media driven event - you have enough hits because you have enough hits - warrants auto inclusion.

Further, the whole string implant thing, in and of itself, surely is a wiki article, and as a representative public figure on that topic, this is a keep. As for the ref policy, the whole wiki ref policy thing needs to be completely rethought. Once you start entering the world of dry academic scholasticism with things like references, you need to evaluate them, etc etc.24.60.137.141 15:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: By that logic, it's time for a JDoorjam article, as google hits of my handle have fluctuated up to 300,000. There's absolutely no way anyone should be able to google-hit their way into inclusion at Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Most of it is lifted wholesale from [23]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on checking I think it's the other way around in that the surgeontothestars page is an uncredited copy of the Wikipedia article. If you check the history of the Wikipedia article, you can see it slowly coming into its current form. For instance, on Nov 8/05, a user names LisaCarol added 3 paragraphs about Chelsea - the ones starting with "Chelsea's bust size...", "She was a natural..." and "When asked if...", citing Chelsea's FAQ as a source. Tabercil 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - She is one of the top (breast pun not intended) big bust models over the last several years. She's notable due to her string implants. Her popularizing the rare implant procedure lead several others in her field to attempt to go bigger and bigger. If she isn't notable in her vocation, then no big bust model on Wikipedia is notable. Cause she has thousands of fans at various Yahoo Groups. And her official website gets millions of hits every month. Far more than Maxi Mounds, Minka, or most other big bust models. Also it should be noted that the article has been on Wikipedia for over two years, with several dozen people contributing to its expansion. All the people that have contributed done so because they thought it was important and worthwhile. People have put hours and hours of their time and energy into this article, and the various other model/pornstar articles. If anything the articles need expanded and improved, not deleted. And the above commenter is mistaken. They have it backwards, in that the site [24] obviously took the free information provided on Wikipedia and used it in part to create their article. But the link does show that other sites do consider her not only notable but also an internet celebrity in her own right worthy of inclusion. Many sites list her name as a key word in attempts to get more visitors to sell their various products or services. Lastly, no information on this article, an article that has been worked on and edited by many different people for the past two years is in violation of copyright infringement. It is basic info that one would find on any biography page on widipedia about models, which the subject of the article has provided freely on her own site and in interviews or conversations with fans, such as her stage name, birthday, and the fact that she is a big bust model with string implants. The info is as accurate and truthful, as is possible with big bust models, or pornstars that the mainstream media usually ignore.Powergirl 17:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Artilce is correceted and acceptable now .Fobw 23:10, 8 October 2006 MET
    • Comment: Corrected how? Yes, it's been changed, but it seems that all that was added was a link to a collection of big-bust-model URLs, and another link to a page on which some of her pictures are hosted. How does any of this show notability? I ask the closing admin to check on the reference value of the URLs that have been added. JDoorjam Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per fobw the article is corrected and acceptable now Yuckfoo 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep II: the only valid issue i can see is that of whether or not it qualifies as an "article." i certainly think it's an article good enough to do justice to the subject. any "moral" objection is bogus, a smokescreen for an agenda, in my view. StevewK 70.110.200.39 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but nobody here is raising a moral objection to the article. That was the issue of the previous AfD, which was plagued with a series of problems. This one revolves around notability (and, to a lesser extent, verifiability) issues, many of which remain resolutely unresolved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, and fails WP:BIO (IMDB is the only link supplied that we can use to gauge notability) TewfikTalk 04:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The assertion of notability is that she is a top big bust model and that she has the largest breast implants in the world (10000cc string implants). Her 10000cc chest can be seen at YouTube where over 95,000 folks have viewed her video.[25] With that many YouTube views, and all the search results on the major search engines, or the fact she's the #1 model at Photoclubs.com proves that she's not only notable in the industry but to most big bust fans online. Their can be no denying that she is more known than most big bust models listed on Wikipedia. Only someone that knows nothing about the big bust industry over the last few years would be unware to the status that this lady holds. There is no way to deny that she is one of the top big bust models in America this decade. And that her breasts weigh 31 pounds each. If that isn't mentioned in the article, then someone should add that. The article needs to be edited to make clear that the 26 pound number is from a few years ago when she was at 7000cc. Although the end of the article clearly mentions her announcement about having reached the milestone 10000cc at the 2005 Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vagas. Keisha Evans[26] is the only other women in the exotic dancing/big bust business today that even comes close, with Miss Evans recently getting 6000cc implants. For the last few years everyone in the big breast niche market (ie Score, Photoclubs.com, ect.) recognize that with the FDA banning anyone else from getting string implants; and none of the other women that did having the level of growth that Chelsea Charms experienced; that Chelsea Charms is left as the undisputed title holder of "women with the largest breasts in the industry." Check out this article about Sabrina Sabrok, it mentions that Chelsea Charms has the largest breasts in the world, and that Sabrina is trying to go bigger and bigger to be #1 someday.[27] Just because Maxi Mounds has an award from early 2005 for her string implants that weigh far less than Chelsea's has nothing to do with the notability of Miss Charms. Wikipedia clearly needs editors that know at least a little bit about what their writing about. If someone knows nothing about who is a top big bust model, or whether their notable in their profession, then they shouldn't be voting on or trying to delete such articles.Powergirl 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject seems to be notable per above but sources would be a good idea. Lack of sources is not a reason to delete. --Richard 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Keep?): There is a notable link to this page on the String breast implant page.
  • Keep this one as a curiosity (largest, longest, oldest, etc). Put the technology used for the implants into section of its own - as it may be of some value. Pavel Vozenilek 13:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restated Delete Still fails WP:PORNBIO.Most of links provided point to either subject's website, other online photo galleries, or mentions in passing. IMDb has a "whopping" two entries. No industry awards. No independent reliable articles. --Roninbk t c e # 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restated Delete. I took a look at the new references provided, and they have not changed my mind. None of them look like "credible sources", and indeed, most of them are just links to promotional or porn sites (one of them even requires a password for entry), some of which did nothing more than confirming that there is an entertainer named "Chelsea Charms", without giving any other information about her [28]. As for the others, the two that looked the most credible were an article in a 2002 issue of Hustler[29], and a website about San Francisco erotica [30], but again, they did little but confirm that Chelsea Charms exists. This kind of coverage is what we refer to as "trivial mentions", and they don't verify notability. Not every model who has appeared on the cover of a magazine, is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia bio. To prove that Ms. Charms is "famous", I would want to see proof of published articles that don't just mention her, but are about her. Notability could also be established by providing proof that she had won an award of some type, or a credible claim somewhere that she was "biggest" or "most famous" or any of the other claims being made. As is said in many other places around Wikipedia: If someone is genuinely famous, then many articles are going to be written about them, and that will provide proof of notability. Wikipedia is not what makes someone famous, Wikipedia is what is used to report on someone who is already famous. If proof can be provided of that notability, to show that she meets any of the requirements listed in WP:PORNBIO, I might change my mind, but so far such proof has not yet been provided. --Elonka 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With over 280,000 google hits, she has enough notability to deserve a wikipedia article. -- Freemarket 23:50, 10 October 2006
  • Keep, although I must agree some of the directory-type "sources" should be removed expeditiously. RFerreira 01:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And improve. This article needs sourcing, not deletion. As has been stated, a Google search more than establishes notability. Vic sinclair 17:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough... now has citations... passed WP:PORNBIO... and still people are thinking about deleting?!?!?! Jeez folks, learn to accept defeat.  ALKIVAR™ 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alkivar, you may wish to re-review Wikipedia:Consensus. AfD discussions are not about "winning" or "losing", they are about allowing different editors to have a civil discussion on a particular matter. Please try to show more respect for the opinions of other editors, rather than treating this like a competition. --Elonka 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restated Keep for those who think she fails WP:PORNBIO, I disagree, I think she passes under "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche", which would be big-bust performer. Valoem talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there definitely seems to be a "big bust" genre, of which Ms. Charms is a part, but which of the references do you believe establish that she is more notable within that niche than any of the other similar models? To be clear: Are we willing to establish a precedent that any woman who is known as a "big bust performer", who has a fanclub and a certain number of Google hits, is thereby deserving of having a Wikipedia bio? --Elonka 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cited; doesn't seem to lack notability.--Prosfilaes 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is far from perfect, but I believe it now meets the basics of WP:PORN BIO. With regards to Elonka's comments, who I respect dearly, this performer need not be the most notable within her niche, only notable enough, which I believe this subject is. Silensor 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it has references, subject is notable. bbx 19:06, 12 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 Speedy Delete, reposted deleted material. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaChroed

Vanity article, created by User:Lachroed, about lead singer of a non-notable band. Russ (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio and as a repost of Lachroed. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 11:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the user who created the article removed a {{db-spam}} template from it already. Russ (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest that this AfD also cover the related articles Stay LaChroed, Blue Angels (group), and LaChroed (Demo) as well. The creator also has a copy of the article at his user page User:Lachroed, but the discography doesn't match up, which is pretty suspicious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Starblind suggests. PJM 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole set as Starblind suggests. -- Hoary 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. MER-C 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per [31]. JBKramer 13:32, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Goods

Original research Nehwyn 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely DO NOT Redirect to Economy of the People's Republic of China. It is hard to believe that an article of that broad a scope would have room for something so specific as this.

Yes, this is an OR essay but most of it seems to be very likely sourceable to a reliable source. I will slap an {{unsourced}} tag on it. Let's encourage the article creator to source the assertions. The topic is encyclopedic and the content of the article seems to be relatively objective and valuable. --Richard 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Relatively objective"? The article has an NPOV tag on it. ColourBurst 19:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes, "relatively objective". I dare say that this article could be written about the impact of Chinese goods on many nations including the United States. The fact that it focuses on the impact of Chinese goods on Pakistan is perhaps unfortunate since this suggests that we would have an article on the impact of Chinese goods on India and every other nation other than China. The tone of the article is unencylopedic but the substance is quite encyclopedic. I think it deserves a cleanup tag but not the NPOV tag although more POVs could be added to make it a more comprehensive article. What I mean by this is that there are the POVs of manufacturers big & small, retailers big & small, the national and local governments and the consumer. This article doesn't really cover the range but then again few articles do. In any event, this article certainly should NOT be deleted. --Richard 07:18, 10 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 Speedy delete G7, author request. NawlinWiki 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shevjenko

I had previously prodded it, and it was removed by the author. Now stephenb had prodded it with the same concerns I had (that despite several offline references added, there is no easily verifiable details). Since prod has failed, I'd like to get more eyes on it and don't personally have the time to investigate.-- Syrthiss 11:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possibly could have been a merge with Seegloo, but I can find no other on-line source that says Seegloo was also "Dave Shevjenko" (despite there being quite a lot about the expedition to be found on-line). I strongly suspect a hoax, particularly since Shevjenko is listed as an ancestor for Iain Lee, which is an article hoaxers and vandals are particularly drawn to. Stephenb (Talk) 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax JBKramer 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - Speedy Sole author requests deletion. JBKramer 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Comment: I am not the author I have no idea who wrote this garbage! CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hello, I have nothing to do with this or those other items of vandalism; I use this site on a shared computer I can only assume that I didn't log out properly. I checked the Ip address and it matches the vandalism that was done under my account too, so it is obviously someone that also lives in this building. I shall have to be more carefull in the future! As you can see I actually help protect pages from vandalism, and have made positive contributions. Thanks, CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Market Reform Movement

The term itself is a neologism which doesn't seem to have stuck. I can't find any reliable source referring to this "Market Reform Movement", and ultimately it looks like a POV fork of the morass at Naked short selling. POV forks should be deleted, and neologisms should too. There are a lot of inline links but none of them are non-blog sources referring to this "movement". (ESkog)(Talk) 11:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 621 ghits. MER-C 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism --Dweller 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if the title was changed to NCANS, or National Coalition Against Naked Shorting, would that satisfy your objection to this as a neologism? NCANS and TheSanityCheck.com have been mentioned and recognized in periodicals and by the court, thus that objection falls by the wayside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.16.224.109 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    That still doesn't address my concern about the page being a POV fork of Naked short selling. The issue should be discussed in depth on that page rather than being forked off to describe one point of view on the topic. The "movement" is a red herring. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. In addition to being an obvious POV fork, it is also essentially an advertisement for non-notable blogs and websites. --Mantanmoreland 13:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Amoruso 14:13, 7 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, with no prejudice against the recreation of this article if the theory becomes notable enough to warrant an entry. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum cybernetics

Hmmm...WP:NOTABILITY suggests that "a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." I feel that this fails that criterion. The article would appear to have been created by the person who came up with this theory, meaning that maybe it fails WP:VAIN as well. It is not a widely recognised interpretation of quantum mechanics (or, in fact, recognised by anyone at all, apparently, other than its author), and Citebase records a total of 6 citations of "quantum cybernetics", 3 of which are self-citations. See also the discussion on the article's talk page for more info.

It was prodded a while ago, someone removed the tag, but the article has remained the same.Byrgenwulf 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Tengfred 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find the reasoning in the nomination and the talk page cogent and sensible. If these ruminations had attracted more attention, one could have made a case that they merited an article on notability grounds. However, such is not the case, and we don't need an article on every idea which went nowhere outside the inventor's head. Anville 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think we should cut some slack for the hidden variable theories, but this short article is quite hard to follow, and the use of the term 'cybernetics' is not motivated. Plus the concerns about lack of citations mentioned above. To show how thoroughly this article was discussed, it should be mentioned that, besides Talk:Quantum cybernetics there was also a debate at [32]. EdJohnston 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Yes, I am the author of the article as well as of most (but not all) papers on Quantum Cybernetics. I will not go into any detail concerning the numerous errors and half-truths that came up in the discussion here. Knowing that you will delete anyway, here's what I still have to say.

I put the article here, because I thought that WP was a forum less conservative than the average (sic!) academia. I am a person involved in the discussion on the foundations of quantum theory for quite some time now, and from the serious discussions I do have with open-minded physicists, I've not had a single argument that would cast serious doubt on the proposed theory. By the way, may I remind you of Murray Gell-Mann's famous statement: "Quantum mechanics is not a theory, but rather a framework within which we believe any correct theory must fit." This is true even 80 years after it has been brought into existence! So, a little modesty would be quite adequate when putting judgements into a general form, like saying, for instance: "...but then I supposes hidden variables approaches to QM have been out of vogue since, well, Bohr." This quote by Mr. Byrgenwulf speaks for itself, even if it is meant half-jokingly (which I assume, because later in the talk he quotes John Holland's book as a "good" one) - this is exactly the way most orthodox (quantum) physicists (Copenhageners) behave. This has of course nothing to do with intellectual sincerity, but only with (mostly institutional) power. Whoever doubts this is invited to look up our webpage http:\\web.chello.at\ains and scroll down to the article on "The John Bell Scandal".

It is far from true that Quantum Cybernetics is only founded on one scientific paper (the one I quote is just an exemplary one, of course, and Found.Phys.Lett. is EXACTLY the journal where you publish "foundational" theoretical papers - Nature, or Phys.Rev.Lett., resp., would not do that on principle!), nor is the theory unknown among experts (see, e.g., J. Baker-Jarvis and P. Kabos, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042110 (2003), who begin their summing up of hidden-variable theories by saying: "Holland, Grossing <sic! no umlaut this time>, and others have performed extensive research in this area." That my approach is not quoted in strictly Bohmian papers is no big surprise, as I do believe that the Bohmian approach does not go far enough, although in many respects I consider it one of the most valuable antidotes vis-a-vis the Copenhagen hegemony, which pervades most of conservative academia (and which, of course, still does not have a theory in Gell-Mann's sense yet!).

So, what can you do? Trying to go beyond Copenhagen Mysticism (which maintains that there will be no better "understanding"), with a realist agenda, but not being a Bohmian, you'll have to develop un-orthodox strategies to promote your theory. I thought WP was an option for doing this, because I did and do believe that Quantum Cybernetics is an OFFER to people who like to THINK AUTONOMOUSLY. Unfortunately, as it seems, WP is dominated by the same academic people who have the say in the intellectual milieu that is responsible, amongst other things, for the John Bell Scandal. (By the way, up until late in his career, when he published upon invitation for Rev.Mod.Phys., Bell never published any of his by now famous papers in a scientific journal of "high reputation". He even was not allowed to give a course on the foundations of quantum theory at CERN throughout his life!)

Personally, I am convinced that sooner or later, a hidden-variable type theory will have to substitute quantum theory. Most likely, this will become necessary not because of a phantastic new theory that all of a sudden explains it all, but because new experimental facts (based on better than present-day resolutions) will force even orthodox quantum physicists to admit modifications of their beloved holy grail. Then, perhaps in a not too far future, one would be forced to look for new theoretical approaches. Quantum Cybernetics may turn out to be too simple an approach, but it might as well be that it can provide an acceptable starting-point for a more profound understanding.

Of course, I cannot conceal my disappointment about WP policies responsible for deletion of my article. I feel they have to do with an urge to be "respectable" among academics, and to stick to what can "really safely" be said about, e.g., scientific issues. Unfortunately, there's not much that is "really safe", especially in the foundations of quantum theory (and its relation to relativity, for example), and it would be wise to remain open-minded on all those issues that are only seemingly "safe", but in reality covered-up with a lot of meaningless rhetoric, like "out of vogue-ness", and the like. Okay, I guess I'll leave it at that. 212.186.121.51 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I really was just being flippant when I made the quip about hidden-variables approaches being out of vogue. I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation either. Also, this is really not about the accuracy or validity of your work. We both know that hidden-variables approaches have their own problems (rotational invariance, non-locality, ad hocness, etc.). So it comes down to choosing one's poison, really, as Maudlin put it. Finding an approach that sits well with one philosophically, in the absence of the higher-resolution experimental evidence (which may never be forthcoming). However, if anything nowadays, a bit of Copenhagen austerity is a blessed relief from the ontological excesses of the many-worlds view, which is arguably becoming the dominant viewpoint.
I am pleased to see that I was right about your decision to post the quantum cybernetic article here not being out of vanity, but rather a sincere attempt to draw people's attention to it. The thing is, we have to draw the line somewhere, and experience dictates that theorists posting their own theories just doesn't work. However, maybe it is me who is being unforgiveably blind and ignorant here. Can you provide some citations of the quantum cybernetic approach by other people? Because certainly, if it has generated healthy discussion in the literature, then we should have an article on it. I just couldn't find any (and I did look!). But Wikipedia, I'm afraid, is not the place to stir up that discussion. Byrgenwulf 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again. I may be loosing my time here, but anyway: here’s one last comment on my behalf. Yes, there are actually quite a number of citations from other people; out of several such in the early days, take, for example: G. Resconi and P. J. Marcer, "A novel representation of quantum cybernetics using Lie algebras", Physics Letters A 125, 6-7 (1987), 282-290; and in recent years, since about 2003, apart from book reviews (in English, Russian and Chinese) of my Springer book, I can offer the Phys. Rev. article I quoted last time, and also those: R. W. Carroll, "On the quantum potential", Applicable Analysis 84 (2005), 1117-1149. R. W. Carroll, Fluctuations, information, gravity and the quantum potential, Springer, book in press (2006), and a book in preparation in German: L. Fritsche und M. Haugk, Anschauliche Quantenmechanik – where, incidentally, an intensive exchange of ideas since two years is taking place with Prof. Fritsche … all of this as an example of ongoing debates which don’t enter global recognition just because of local language (... but the book is to appear also in English, eventually).

One last remark on the alleged "problems" with hidden-variable approaches. I don’t see one any more with rotational invariance (cf. recent papers by Peter Holland, most of them on the arXive), and concerning nonlocality: well, is the Copenhagen or any other interpretation better in coping with nonlocality?? I don’t think so at all, and in fact, quantum cybernetics offers a way to model nonlocal correlations via establishment of standing waves between "particle" and "detector" – not quite unlike Cramer's transactional interpretation (but without the spooky backward in time stuff). Finally, concerning ad hocness: Look into any book on quantum mechanics and add up all the ad hoc assumptions! Compared to just one (or two) in my derivation of the Schrödinger equation from a modified classical mechanics (related to assumptions about the vacuum), they are legions! Plus: you can't get something from nothing! With this deep insight I say hello one more time. May the good forces be with you! 212.186.121.51 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quantum cybernetics is the subject of a book (Quantum Cybernetics: Toward a Unification of Relativity and Quantum Theory via Circularly Causal Modeling) published in 2000 by Springer, a major worldwide publisher. It has appeared in academic journals (Foundations of Physics Letters and Physics Letters A), and as shown by 212.186.121.51's citations above, has attracted interest beyond its originator. By the standard referenced by the nominator that a topic is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself", quantum cybernetics is notable. Tim Smith 10:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sourcing has since been provided, TewfikTalk 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sources only satisfy WP:V in that they demonstrate that Mr. Groessing has in fact published his theory. I fail to see any reliable independent sources that discuss it, wich means it's likely not notable enough, IMHO. (I'm not calling it pseudoscience, because I know zip about physics, but the general tone of the above discussion is at least indicative as to why reliable sources might not be eager to pick it up...) Sandstein 08:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My biggest concern is the vanity aspect of this article. If this theory becomes notable enough, I'm sure someone other than the theory's inventor will create an article on it. Even this new and improved version of the article is starting to lean more and more to be about the article's author than about the theory. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:18, 13 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 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magestorm

Tagged for speedy as non-notable game. Fair comment, but that's not a speedy criterion. If this is a notable ghame the article does a poor job of showing it. Guy 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was the guy who out the speedy tag on. Basically, it's from a now-defunct company, it's no longer available, it was done in 2001 so isn't historically important and it has no assertions of notability. (Plus I think the page has been abandoned for quite some time.) The Kinslayer 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 13:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search on Google shows hits on all major gaming websites for this title (IGN, GameSpy, also mentioned on GameSpot). Also the fact that it's made by the guys who are now working on Warhammer Online makes it notable enough for its inclusion. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't set a "date" as to when something is important enough to be included. Havok (T/C/c) 13:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ign and Gamespot aren't the best sources to establish notability since they review every game that comes their way, and just because the designer is working on a game that people DO know about doesn't make THIS game notable. Did it sell well, did it win awards, cause controversy or make news in any way other than 'game released?' Did anyone other then reviewers and the article creator even play it? THAT is the information that would prove if this game is notable. Just being released is not enough to distinguish a game from other games. The Kinslayer 14:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the developer is notable, I would presume that it would make this game notable enough to have its own article. We don't ask for sales figures on any other games on Wikipedia as a notability check, so why should we in this instance? I want to direct you to some articles about games that are not known by that many people, and not even released by a well known, big developer/publisher; SuperPower 2, Uplink and Crimsonland to name a few. What makes these more notable then Magestorm? Havok (T/C/c) 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good point. If you don't mind putting up sources in the article, I'll change to a keep, because those games may have been underground, but there's tangible proof of their notability all over the net. The Kinslayer 17:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:SOFTWARE (multiple independent reviews) and per WP:MUSIC i.e. if we are going to allow every freaking record (even total bombs) put out on a "major label" or a very loosely defined "important indie label", then we should be consistent and allow separate articles for every game put out by a notable game developer, which Mythic certainly is. Bwithh 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also a good point. If you source those reviews, I won't have a problem keeping the article. As the article stands now, there's no proof that this game is anything other than a complete non-event. (The article doesn't even state the developers are working on Warhammer Online, which I agree is worth noting.) The Kinslayer 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind deleting records - WP is no an indiscriminate collection of information, and articles that list just a record and its soundtracks are pure lists that are indiscriminate. Hbdragon88 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - any commercially, widely released game from a recognisable game studio warrants an article in my opinion. If more sources are needed, that's a cleanup matter. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Changed the vote now the article is more informative. But it's only a week keep becasue the article is stille barely worth keeping without more work. The Kinslayer 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wwwwolf. 209.209.140.21 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the various reasons stated above. RickReinckens 23:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it exists and is an actual commercialproject, not soem fan game with a few hunder players. Wikipedia isn't paper. While some notability is necessary, there's no need to restrict articles only to things that are wildly popular. Ace of Sevens 23:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Saying non-notable is a poor and unconvincing argument. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that it matters since I changed to a keep, but WP:V states: '3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.' This to me implies establishing notability as well. The Kinslayer 09:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it meets criteria of WP:SOFTWARE, TewfikTalk 04:48, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Half-Life

Doesn't seem to be anymore notable than any other mod. No outside sources or anything used in the article. Google search yields a few hundred results, all of which seem to be either download sites, web forums, or unrelated. Doesn't seem to have any third party sources, which fails verifiability and WP:RS. PROD was removed with "This is verifiable, if you take time to look at the linked home page and actually play the mod", however, neither of those suggestions constitute encyclopedic research. Delete as such. Wickethewok 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Game mods are usually not notable. No sources in the article, no sign of any media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article lacks your precious, "encyclopedic research," then I guess most, if not all, other Half-Life mod articles on Wikipedia better be deleted also. Wikipedia is becoming too tense in allowing what to keep and what to delete. Delete this, if you must, but you're just halting the forward progress of information and what the people see as important. You treat Google "hits" and outside "sources" like they're the bible of all things right with the world. This mod does get attention in it's rightful area, which is the Half-Life community. It does get recognition in said community. All because you don't "see" (read: Google search IYO) it, doesn't mean it isn't there. And as for this site not being a game guide, this page was anything but a guide. It only told about the bare basics about the mod and was to try and get the people informed about it. Blacklist 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whereas this is hands down, one of the greatest Half-Life single player mods ever; it's even better than the vastly overrated They Hunger (although not as good as Poke 646). I don't have the sources for an encyclopedic article. I really doubt that forum posts, tenfourmaps or the now dead hangar 16 would past mustard through WP:RS. You're best copying this over to the VDC, where its not going to be deleted. Looking through my archive of PC Zone, I can't even find a review for this, even though I managed to find a full page review for the crappy Azure Sheep, which incidentally I voted to delete. - Hahnchen 03:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What is this VDC? I'll be sure to copy this article there. And thank you for your support. Blacklist 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the VDC. - Hahnchen 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Ah, yes. The VALVe Dev Wiki. I'll be sure to copy this article to that. Thank you. Blacklist 21:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...most, if not all, other Half-Life mod articles on Wikipedia better be deleted also." I agree completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely one of the more notable mods for Half-Life, and the relative lack of Google results (775 for 'Sweet Half-Life') is partially due to its age. It was also released, unlike with various as-yet-unreleased, Wikipedia-articled mods for Half-Life 2, and if Sweet Half-Life gets deleted, you'd better start deleting most other mod articles too... --91.86.6.34 12:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the above was by me. Forgot I wasn't logged in... --HiddenInPlainSight 12:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability, complete lack of WP:RS, and I quite agree with the idea of deleting most other mod articles, if they are equally badly sourced. Sandstein 21:01, 7 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 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bipolar Bears

Notability is asserted in the article, however I am not sure if this band meets WP:BAND Wildthing61476 13:19, 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 speedy delete —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts TV

NN internet TV advertisment. Nehwyn 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 13:50, 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 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gordo

100% not notable, doesn't say when or which episode this came from or anything... plus, it's an article about a prop which is only ever seen once or twice, which has no significance to... anything. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. lol, i'm sorry, but that's a really horrible article. A brief mention of it on Buffy Summers might be appropriate, but it definitely doesn't need a whole page to itself. ~ lav-chan @ 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft per nom. Extraneous and irrelevant. —dustmite 15:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm as big a Buffy fan as they come, but, seriously, the pig was mentioned once. -- Merope Talk 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Buffy trivia he may be, but he was significant enough to be a character in the Sunnydale Sock Puppet Theater, and he's coming out as a merchandise item from one of the faux-prop makers. Let me look about a bit ... "Mr. Gordo" brings 82,600 hits, a few more than some things in the Wikipedia. The new toy is from Diamond Select $40 (considerably more than the real faux pig was!) and according to the discussion at Whedonesque, the new one's not as cute.

http://www.toynewsi.com/news.php?catid=168&itemid=10258 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) Sorry 'bout that --htom 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge to Buffy Summers trivia page. Too inconsequential to have it's own article. Ramsquire 00:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 6 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 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball IntelliGym

Non-notable software product. Nehwyn 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite non-notable. 51 unique Google hits. -- Kicking222 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under new CSD G-11. Akradecki 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Simon Speed 22:02, 6 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. Deizio talk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CorVision

Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. 421 GHits for "CorVision Cortex", many of them business directories. Duja 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep CorVision is very much a legacy package only used by a very small number of business, any independent publications, articles etc will have long been out of print and I have not been able to find anything notable on Google. I agree that CorVision is probably of little importance in modern software development but I believe it is of historical relevance as an important 4GL package. With this on mind it should probably be cleaned up to only include the historical facts about the package. sdcoulson
  • Weak keep Seems to be moderately notable, at least passing WP:SOFTWARE. For software popular in the 70s and 80s, I was surprised to find as much about it as I did, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. While parts of this need to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone and greater specificity, it seems largely of historical rather than commercial interest now. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't see multiple external references in the entry, which leads me to question the assertion that it passes WP:SOFTWARE. It is also in need of cleanup. - TewfikTalk 05:04, 10 October 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, Keitei (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly fails WP:SOFTWARE for not having multiple non-trivial publications written about it. Valrith 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The publications exist, they just need to be cited. Also, Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Vectro 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability standards have to take into account the nature of the topic in question. When it comes to legacy software, we need to be more relaxed in our evidence -- there is unlikely to be much WWW info on these languages, because by the time the WWW came along they were mostly gone. But that does not mean that they are unnotable (from a historical perspective), if there are significant mentions in older literature (e.g. trade magazines, journals). Unfortunately, looking up those old magazines would be quite an effort; so I would suggest the answer is to err on the side of keep. --SJK 20:31, 18 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.

Confession (short film)

The result was Speedy G7 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Vanity page by the director of this film Steerpike 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No IMDB entry for either the film or the creator, and thus under my minimum standards for inclusion of films. Special achievement award for nom for being named after a Gormenghast character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh the music was by John Williams... still delete if there is no IMDB enty. --Alex (Talk) 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if notability is in question. John Williams is great, but not necessarily enough. Badbilltucker 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, well... Just delete the damn thing! Ackatsis 22:05, 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 no consensus, socks and single purpose accounts duly noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network

Gamer nonsense and basically an ad for the gamer group. It is basicaly worth a mention in the Flight simulator article, as it is. OBILI ® ± 15:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keeper for sure! If you are going to delete this because it is considered just a game then how about MSN zone? VATSIM is enthuasiast site/community that loves aviation and is modeling the real world airlines they represent. The community has been around for over a decade and has a strong following. They also have a yearly convention at a real hotel. What gamers site has that? The members are very professional and courteous. And some members are actual pilots and aviation employees. I say keep it right where it is with maybe some edits.MarkP1969 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of Rebuttel Not being critical but the 'deletes' are not showing me convincing evidence, they are just throwing the fact that this is a gaming site as a reason, should we delete the Myspace article or Neopets etc. etc. all popular all have articles all arn't deleted --Rob 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep! VATSIM is more than just a group, it is a whole organization with thousands of members. It was even on the front page of the Wall Street Journal! -- 06 October 2006 (1013 UTC)
  • Deffinetly Keep This page is about a notable group in the FS community. It is written reasonably well, there is worse, a lot worse. If IVAO has been deleted I believe that was a mistake and should be rectified. If people believe the tone is 'advertising' then by all means rectifiy it but we have had worse articles about stupider stuff kept. We have articles for games, ranging from big games (Counterstrike) to games that probably few of the community have heard of. The articles Here seem to all be of unkown things and most advertising... using this logic maybe we should delete them --Rob 22:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The page could use some clean-up, but the group seems fairly notable. 120'000 members and a Wall Street Journal article on their activities, that seems pretty iron-clad to me. The article definitely needs to be 'dumbed down' (it seems written for people who are already familiar with air-traffic control and Flight Simulator, which i am not), but i wouldn't call it 'nonsense'. ~ lav-chan @ 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above, a WSJ article and a member count bigger than Fargo, North Dakota show that this is fairly notable. Does need cleanup, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VATSIM is fairly notable and widely-known, and has been cited in numerous respectable publications (including WSJ; see also VATSIM talk page), and has some ties to real-world airlines, although I agree that the article might need to be rewritten a bit. Canwolf 17:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't see a need for this article. It isn't nonsense, but it is worth a paragraph in the flight simulator article instead of its own. Noodles the Clown 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a large and well-known flight simulation network. LukeKolin 21:00, 05 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad for flight sim website. Flyin' Leep 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been using MSFS for about five years and never even heard of this group. The article seems to be only there to get people to get some add on software. Also, it seems to be an article from the Wall Street Journal's news service and not the WSJ itself. One article doen't mean squat. Ponch's Disco 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well written article that has sources. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair\talk 02:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seeing as the other major provider (IVAO) is gone too there is a rather strong precedent isn't there? Maybe [u]all[/u] other organisations should be deleted too... Babotika 06:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, maybe all should be kept? -levent 17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads like it was ripped straight from an advertisement with little change. Wikipedia is not in the business of offering free advertising so this should go, unless it is totally rewritten in a far more objective manner. Even if that's done, its notability remains questionable. --The Way 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All similar organizations were deleted from wikipedia, even IVAO, a similar organization that is larger and created 3 years before VATSIM. Yrtgm 12:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and well-known in the flight sim community; I agree with Canwolf that the article can be re-written for higher quality. By the way, the "add on software" mentioned above is and always will be completely free. Tim 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VATSIM has been a Flight Simulator community since 1997 when it was created under the name SATCO. It encompasses seven regions around the world with more than 120,000 members. VATSIM has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Wired Magazine, Wired TV, AOPA, PC Pilot, and various other radio programs around the world. The community charges no fees for membership or software. --OnMeds 22:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and well-known in the FS community. Worth keeping 2208 UTC October 6, 2006
  • Keep VATSIM is a step for future pilots & controllers! Helping them learn and expand their knowledge on Air Traffic Control Operations. They do not make any money, as they are a free organistion. A very educational and exciting hobby for aviation enthusiasits User:ssmithuk2 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepVATSIM is educating network, based on real life model.
  • Keep VATSIM is totally free and a very educational and fun place!!
  • Keep Calling VATSIM a "Gamer Ad" is absolute Hogwash. This has been an international community for close to 10 years now with over 120,000 members. There's nothing being sold here except a common love for aviation. --aca301 2235 6 October, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep; over 100 000 registered members and the prominent online flight simulation network. Article does have some quality problems, but it can be entirely written...Phoenix2 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepI have read things on Wiki that I know not alot about and I was a bit confused as I didnt understand the in's of the language so to base a deletion on that is not viable. Vatsim is a great place to meet new friends and the cost can be as little as the game cost and you can choose which you addon and how much YOU want to spend.
  • Strong Keep VATSIM is not just an ad for flight sim, it is a community much on its own dedicated to realistic simulation of ATC. VATSIM does not advertise commercial products (any add-on software required to use Vatsim is 100% free) nor is this article an add for Vatsim, as Vatsim is a NPO. Vatsim has changed my life and thousands of others. Keep it!!! ~~Andras Kiss
  • Keep it - 0040 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be notable and the membership is north of 100,000. Reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal have written about it to confirm its notability. A cleanup is needed though. Wikipediarules2221 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and keep - Has at least one reliable source, can probably be salvaged. Needs a lot of hack and slash though. FCYTravis 01:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This community is the premier network for flight and air traffic control simulation. How can anyone be seriously offended or afraid of an organisation that helps people not only enjoy thier hobby to the fullest, but it is also used by some as a stepping stone to a real career in aviation or the related areas. If Wall Street Journal can see the merits why all the narrow mindness here?60.226.112.22 03:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Steve[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very active community with over 120,000 members. Provides and educational experience to not only newbie virtual pilots but to people who have some flying time. Simulates actual air traffic control.
  • Strong Keep Very active community with over 120,000 members. Provides and educational experience to not only newbie virtual pilots but to people who have some flying time. Simulates actual air traffic control.(The guy above me is right!)
  • Keep Very active community with just over 120,000 members. Operates completely as a non-profit organisation . Provides the hobby with a valuable and high quality service. Has been remarked upon in WSJ to name but one. - //7th, October, 2006 (08:39)//
  • Strong Keep VATSIM isn't a business or company but an organization, and a very large one at that. It deserves a place on here just as any other large organization. I was amazed that such a network existed, when I was told about it. It is amazing that people can simulate real world operations so closely by using a flight simulator and a simulated radar client. //7th, October, 2006 (10:32)//
  • Keep
  • Keep Very active organization with over 120,000 members of the flight sim community. You delete this, then delete all organizations from this site.
  • Comment: There are 1,470 exact hits with this term on Google. Unfortunately, half of the article reads like an ad. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This "gamer nonsense" is not actually only about MSFS so it wouldn't be appropriate to just mention in FS article. You could use other simulators or no simulator at all by taking the role of an air traffic controller. VATSIM has been mentioned in a couple of news papers in my country and others. Hence, I think it deserves its own article. I mean, what VATSIM has less than ISketch? levent 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate organisation that is very important and notable in the flight simulator community. Flugmann 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and meets WP:SOFTWARE, TewfikTalk 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This contains valuable information for new users and lots of good info Nice day3 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is basically an ad for a website and software. Even if it is free, it still is an ad. Note to closing admin: This AFD has been filled with all sorts of socks, please take this into account when you close it! TV Newser Tipline 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is full of socks, which is people who use multiple usernames to post on the same thing to make others believe there is an overwhelming influence in the community. I would also like to challange the 'delete' croud to show proof (quotes etc.) of this 'ad'. So far they are just saying 'Delete Beacause it is an Ad. Ain't got no reason behind it, with that logic I could get almost any page deleted! --Rob 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, taking out the socks/SPAs, you get "no consensus" at the very least. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:36, 11 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TaskJuggler

This was deleted through AfD in July. A DRV consensus overturned this deletion in light of new sources providing verifiability. For the sources, please see the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ??? Keep. I don't understand the "procedural nomination" comment. The article clearly seems worthwhile although it needs to be expanded. Milton Humason 03:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the point of putting it AfD right after it was reinstated after an DRV consensus? The article can certainly be improved a bit and I'm willing to do it. But not if it gets kicked out again for the same bogus reasons. HeronOfAlex 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No no no to the above. The DRV overturned the AfD so the AfD needs to be done again, the DRV did not make this somehow a keep. JoshuaZ 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the DRV relisted due to the possibility of third-party sources being supplied, but the two supplied in the DRV are not themselves enough (two 'how-to' manuals from the same publication). Perhaps if at least one other source could be found that would establish widespread usage... TewfikTalk 15:39, 10 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 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Satan

Internet radio, 303 unique ghits, no gnews mentions, the closest thing to verifiability in terms of third-party reporting appears to be various forum posts. Misses WP:WEB apparently. There's always the off-chance that someone with access to Factiva or the like can find reliable sources, so here we are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom.--Tdl1060 17:33, 7 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 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion controversy

This started as a POV-fork and ended as a mess. Whereas some editors may be tempted to keep this just as junkyard to keep the main article Cold fusion free from the worst stuff, it would be more honest to delete the fork. --Pjacobi 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an irreparable mess. When (if) the Cold fusion article itself gets put into a decent state, that will be the appropriate time to consider branching off sub-articles on various details. Anville 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've been familiar with the article for a long time and believe it's better off dead. It's filled up with original research, PoV, lunatic fringe, and sniping comments. Outside of the garbage, there nothing there. Jefffire 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above (and Jefffire, who just gave me an edit conflict). "In most of these arguments, a brief statement of a skeptic or skeptics is presented and then followed by a counter-argument in favor of cold fusion."???? This isn't what an encyclopaedia is for! Byrgenwulf 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This won't necessarily improve the maintainability of cold fusion, but in an ideal world this article wouldn't exist and the relevant info would be in the main article. We might as well bring the world one small step closer to being ideal. -- SCZenz 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and what Anville said above... Some day I can imagine a revised Cold Fusion article, fully protected and with all changes requiring a vote. It may be that some controversial topics can't be handled otherwise. EdJohnston 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This POV-fork is unnecessary. Doubtful that anyone will search for this particular title of an article before looking for cold fusion as a first go. --ScienceApologist 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with all above. –MT 00:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, egregious POV-fork. –Joke 02:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; slanted and unnececessary. Cardamon 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A sad read. Such slanted articles ought to be kept off WP. --Delta Tango | Talk 00:01, 7 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Don M Spiers

Not only is this article's subject rather arguable in notablility as well as the title being in the wrong format, but the prose is extremely POV and riddled with phrases that make it sound like it was written by a close friend (I don't believe it was, however). It added {{POVcheck}} tag to it, which was subsequently removed by someone else (who did not make it NPOV). Even the article's picture has no copyright tag whatsoever. If someone wants to remake it, this time with more facts in a NPOV way then they may. Until then, this article should be deleted. NauticaShades(talk) 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NPOV issue and notability issue are very strong cases to remove. TheRanger 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is terrible. Pastor Don’s life was so inspiring that almost most of church believers can tell of how good the Lord has been to him, what. No. Half the article is nonsense, half of it is pushing religion, and the other half lacks any notibility whatsoever. And yes this article does in fact have three halves. Also the user who created this page appears to have a history of POV-pushing, creating non-notable articles, and just causing general ruckus. ~ lav-chan @ 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you. Such phrases as this are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. NauticaShades(talk) 17:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup instead of delete. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is clearly a mis-use of Wikipedia to publish a memorial. It was created the day after the memorial service for the article's subject. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I tried to clean the article up, starting by removing all of the content that was either highly biased (such as text that tacitly assumed that everyone the world is a Christian) or outright unverifiable (such as statements about the subject's thoughts, inner revelations, and aspirations — which readers have no way at all of checking, not even that of asking the subject xyrself, since xe is dead), and ended up with no article. Rewriting is also not an option, because there aren't any sources at all from which to build a neutral and verifiable encyclopaedia article. There's a 1-line obituary notice and that's it. The subject does not satisfy any of the WP:BIO criteria, moreover. Delete. Uncle G 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, the obituary was in 2004. The article history shows no edits prior to 27 September 2006. It also shows no edits by Uncle G. It also shows no anonymous edits that meet that description. Are you sure that all of the above comment applies to this article? GRBerry 21:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. As I explained quite clearly, I tried and ended up with no article. Uncle G 10:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This has one of the biggest issues with NPOV policy I've ever seen on the Wikipedia. It reads like an obituary written by a family member. --The Way 10:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI edited the article to remove POV parts and added references to show notability, as head of youth ministry for Oral Roberts, and David Wilkerson ministries, as Associate Deputy Chief Pastor of the Ceylon Pentecostal Mission, and as having preached to tens of thousands in international evangelism missions. Spiers was known in many countries, and has sufficient notability for inclusion. He was not just a local pastor of a congregation. If there are style problems with the form of the article title, editing is preferred to deletion.Edison 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete I haven't found online any reliable sources to demonstrate notability at WP:BIO levels. I also happen to believe that such sources probably exist in print. But they aren't cited here yet. I ask the closing admin to evaluate the sources at the time of closing, and to count this opinion of the sourcing is reliable then. However, I will note that a failure to have a NPOV is not a reason for deletion if it is possible to overcome the tone/bias problem. If we have sources, it will be possible to overcome the issues with tone. GRBerry 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. The fact that he was a sub-pastor of various groups doesn't make him "notable". There are tens of thousands of "sub"-pastors throughout the world. RickReinckens 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. notability and no citations/verifiability. --Buridan 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV issues aside, he is still a nn that fails WP:BIO. - TewfikTalk 15:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply Rencin

Nauticashades strongly insist on deleting this page rather that helping out when I asked as to what should I do. She says about NPOV which might be true, but I did not know. When asked she gave no reply. She thinks this page was created by Pastor Don himself. When I made my point clear then its been put for taging. Really neat.
Lav-chan says pastor Don's life has inspired a lot of people. He also goes on to say that this page has got nonsense "Half the article is nonsense, half of it is pushing religion, and the other half lacks any notibility whatsoever. " .He also says that I (rencin) has got the history of pushing POV.Well I have no idea of that by what he meant to say. All I did was create a page. I haven't gone to push POV or NPOV.
Uncle G says "· The article is clearly a mis-use of Wikipedia to publish a memorial. It was created the day after the memorial service for the article's subject. Wikipedia is not a memorial". He/she also used a word such as tacitly. What do you mean by that now??? He also says there is no other source expect for "a 1-line obituary notice". And so everyone vote for deleting rather than seeing the content and helping me out when I asked so many of them. You can do what you want. Remember this page Pastor Don M Spiers is not a religious promotion. I just created it so that people can know more about him I thought there was also a stub added too. I am not either close friend or I haven't even seen him in person. Thanks a lot for all this. I know I am a new user. rencin24

Response From Nominator

I don't know where to start, to be honest. First of all, I am a he. I don't know where you got the idea tht I was female. Let me sort out this arguement:
  • No offense, but try to check your grammar before you save a comment you have written.
  • I said it sounds like it was written by the pastor himself, or someone that was very close to him. I meant that it was extremely NPOV.
  • You say that you are not trying to push a NPOV view, but you unwittingly are. Like Uncle G has said, you seem to assume that everyone reading this article is Christion, which is certainly not the case.
  • You misread lav-chan's comment. He/She wasn't saying the his life was inspiring, he was quoting your article. He/She was saying that such a statement is entirely not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.
  • Look up "tacitly" in the Wiktionary if you don't know what it means.
  • You may have asked for help, but the article is unsalvageable. As Uncle G said, there is no information on this article with a reliable source or that could be made NPOV.
I wholeheartedly suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, WP:BIO, WP:NN, and WP:NPOV. NauticaShades(talk)

Comment from lav-chan

I did a little formatting work, hope nobody minds.
Anyway i felt i should clarify what i said earlier. NauticaShades is right in describing what i meant — that that sentence was inappropriate, not only because it was nonsensical and badly written, but also because it is, by definition, pushing a religious POV. Which is what some of the article is still doing, despite Edison's claim that he removed POV material. There are still a few 'factual' references to accepting Jesus Christ and the power of God and all that jazz.
That of course isn't grounds to delete the article entirely. Those POV statements could still be reworded or removed. But i think it does illustrate a lack of understanding on the part of the two or three persons who are involved in editing this article (and its related articles, which have similar problems). They seem to be unable to grasp Wikipedia's NPOV and notability guide lines. There are people on the talk pages of these articles congratulating themselves on making things NPOV, and it's just kind of laughable, because it's blatantly POV and they don't even realise it. And i'm not talking about subtle subconscious wording, i'm talking about outright religion being pushed as fact, not even pretending to be neutral.
I hate to come off like i'm crusading against religion. I'm really not. It's just that, whatever religion you may follow, i think it's a very simple matter to detect when you're promoting a faith like that in an article. If you can't do that, you really need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guide lines. And if you still can't do it after reading all that, i think you need to re-evaluate your involvement in certain topics on Wikipedia.
Also, as far as my comment on rencin24's history, i was referring to his talk page, which suggests he has a lot of 'new-comer'-type issues which he doesn't appear to be interested in resolving. They'd be easily forgivable if it was a once-or-twice kind of thing, but he's only been here for a month and already he's racked up a huge amount of mistakes that he just keeps repeating over and over. If he has read any of the guide lines or help pages, he obviously didn't take them to heart.
I don't mean it to be a personal attack or anything, it's just something that i think should be taken into consideration when weighing the validity of his edits. ~ lav-chan @ 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe Lav-Chan has gone a bit too far in the criticisms of the article as blatant POV promotion of religion after the extensive edits done recently. In articles about religions, statements are commonly made such as "Followers of religion X believe Y." There should not be a stricter standard in this regard for some religions than others. If Spiers "accepted Jesus" that is a description of a decision he made one day, and would be standard for an evangelical minister. If it says he felt this or wondered that, or felt blessed, it is not a claim of proof or even advocacy of a religion. Articles about Catholics say some are determined by the church to be Saints. Marian apparitions says several miraculous appearances by Mary have been confirmed by the church as legitimate. The article on John Wesley, Methodist, says he "Felt his heart strangely warmed" while hearing Bible commentary, and quotes him "For fifty years God has been pleased to bless the itinerant plan." A certain latitude should be granted in recounting the lives of religious figures. Certainly POV statements like "And then he went to heaven" or "Jesus spoke to him" should be removed. But Lav-Chan seems to demand there be no mention of God or the subject's religious belief in an article about a pastor, which is rather strange and extreme, in the light of say, the Billy Graham article. A better plan than deletion might be to edit out any remaining POV statements or statements about his life which are unsupported by verifiable sources. Enough well supported facts remain to satisfy WP:BIO. I certainly removed POV statements; sorry if I missed some. That is why xxx made lots of Wikipedia editors!  :-) Edison 06:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
That isn't even remotely what i was implying. Statements like 'Jesus spoke to him' are exactly the kind of thing i was talking about; every other example you cited (if i'm to take your word for them, which i will) is perfectly acceptable and nothing i said earlier contradicts that.
Anyway that doesn't even matter if you want to get right down to it. Even if the article is the pinnacle of neutral point of view, it doesn't address the notability issue. You've got three references listed in the article, one of which is an obituary, which certainly does not count for anything since it doesn't assert notability. Another is an article published in a magazine in 1976. Can't find any assertion that the magazine is especially notable outside Oral Roberts's group. No awards, no Web site, no particularly reliable third-party verification that the magazine even existed (although i'm sure it did). And the last one appears to be a personal memorial, although the link isn't working for me so i can't check at the moment.
You mentioned on my talk page (and i'll reply to you there also) that 'Googleism' is a bad habit to get into and that it might just take a while to find good sources off-line. That may be the case, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You can't go around creating articles and promise to find sources for them later. You find the source and then you create the article. If you can find some reliable third-party references for Don Spiers in a notable news paper or magazine article, that's great, go ahead and write his article. But until then, you haven't asserted any notability, so i feel the page should be removed.
(I don't know how this formatting is s'posed to work once you start getting into deeper levels, NauticaShades. Go ahead and fix this for me if you have a better idea of how i should reply.) ~ lav-chan @ 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Jesus" is mentioned exactly twice in the article, and nowhere does the phrase "Jesus spoke to him" appear. It says he "accepted Jesus" which describes something common in all evangelicals, and does not say "Jeses did thus and such. " It also says that a gospel passage is the words of Jesus, hardly an extreme POV. I have done another pass of editing. I cannot find any POV statements in the article which go beyond the standard of stating what a religious person believed or felt, which is seen in all other articles about religious persons. It is legitimate, per your own comment on the talk page of the article's creator, to say "Pastor Spiers felt that Jesus was speaking to him." Nowhere does it state that any supernatural power did anything whatsoever. Please note that I did not create the article. All I have had time to do is Google search. Had I been the creator, I would have started with a university library or large public library. In the past I have even used interlibrary loan to obtain microfilm of foreign newspapers from 1915 to try and come up with a verifiable source for other articles. I never heard of this individual before finding it in AFD. If I see an AFD and it looks like the subject might be notable and verifiable with a little research, or that questions of style might be resolved by editing, I make the effort. Editing to improve articles or to verify claims is supposed to be a goal for Wikipedians. Also please note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, also seen all the time in AFD. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches.Edison 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
'"Jesus" is mentioned exactly twice in the article, and nowhere does the phrase "Jesus spoke to him" appear.' — No kidding. That was your example, i was just continuing your line of thought. As far as the rest of the POV arguement, yeah, OK, i already gave you that. You did your job, you removed the rest of the stuff i was talking about before. Way to go.
You (and the article's creator) still haven't asserted notability, not even in your as-yet-unadopted notability proposal for religious persons. Being 'an official of their denomination churchwide' doesn't make a person notable, not outside their church anyway. The church itself must be notable, and the official must still have references. You can not add a person to Wikipedia without there being information available on him. It doesn't matter if he's the single most well-known person in all of human history. If there are no reliable published references on him, he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. It's just common sense, people can't edit an article on a subject that has no readily available sources.
I don't have anything against church officials and churches, even minor ones, being added to Wikipedia. And i don't have anything against devising notability standards for the same. But it's all a moot point, because this guy simply has no good references. If you can find your assertion of notability in microfilm or a library, that's awesome. I'll totally retract my opposition to this article. But until then, you've got nothing on the guy. You're apparently banking on the notion that something will be found in the future to assert his notability, and you just can't do that on Wikipedia. Notability comes before you write the article. ~ lav-chan @ 20:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Big Thank You to all

Hey you guys… I just want to let you all know that it’s been a long after you have tagged it for deletion. Well you can go ahead and delete it as you wish. I don’t want to create a big problem out of this issue. If wikipedia has got thus rules then lets go according to it. I just contributed it thinking it might be useful to all the other readers.Know for sure that I had no intention of promoting any religious stuff in it. It is just some facts of Pastor Don…. Edison first I want to thank you for all the effort you kept doing for this page. And also a big thank you to all the other friends like NauticaShades(talk), TheRanger, lav-chan, Kf4bdy, Uncle G, GRBerry, The Way, RickReinckens, Buridan …..and many others who have been in and out to see that wikipedia would be a better site and enclyopedia. I would really say from my heart that I do not have any grudge or any kind of bitterness against anybody at all. May be I am a new user, but one day I will be a good old user who keeps doing good thing or even better things that wikipedia would have dreamt of. Thanks a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rencin24 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your kindness and know that things of this nature should not be seen as an attack on your person, everyone here really is just focused on making sure the wikipedia is the best it can be. While I still would vote for a deletion, for much of the same reason as lav-chan, its now due largely to the issue of notability. If the article does stay it needs to be cleaned up a bit more for NPOV issues; I just cleaned up one particularly bad section (despite past claims that its been cleaned, phrases like "accepted Jesus into his heart" and such do support a POV). --The Way 04:39, 10 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 11:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Valley Baptist Church

Non-notable church. Article being used as a precedent. Richfife 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ~ lav-chan @ 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn parish; parishcruft. And I strongly disagree with Kf4bdy; if it isn't notable, it doesn't belong here. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo verifiable claim of notability. Notable churches could have articles, but not every church. Notablilty does not equal mere size.Edison 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Melbourne per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Actually, Diamond Creek, Victoria might be a better merge target. JYolkowski // talk 00:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 02:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non-notable church. -- Longhair\talk 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable individual Church location. Erechtheus 03:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 05:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Prolog 13:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this is notable. Lankiveil 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep why does a church have to be notable to have an article. It's just the history of a church. It's good to have an article for the interested people. Besides an encyclopedia is supposed to contain all branches of knowledge, look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No attemp to assert notability. Vegaswikian 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources used, notability is not established and there is no reason to believe an article adhering to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV can be written on this subject, much less maintained in such state. GRBerry 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- DiegoTehMexican 03:27, 10 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. Oh no, I spent a great deal of time talking about this AfD closure. For some reason, it didn't get saved. Now I have to wrack my brain and try to type it again...

I know that this AfD closure will likely be disputed, so I'd better write something that I will copy and paste to a DRV, if it happens. In a nutshell, the consensus is that this article fails to assert notability.

There were a few Keep !votes:

  • One says all non-notable churches belong on Wikipedia.
  • Two say that this is one of the largest and most well-known churches in Melbourne. Later on, this was sourced, but only with a number of people attending the church. There were no credible sources/references saying that this is one of the largest or most well-known churches in Melbourne.
  • One says that there is a source attesting to its size, but that is minimal
  • One that basically says the article needs to be cleaned up because it fails to assert notability.

I believe that these arguments to keep are insufficient to outweigh or address the concerns mentioned by the delete arguments, which is why I'm closing this as Delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossway Baptist Church

Non-notable church. Article is being used as a precedent. Richfife 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ~ lav-chan @ 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not according to the (very much established) status quo. I think a pretty good rule of thumb is, if you're the only person on Wikipedia who knows or cares enough about a subject to edit its article, it doesn't belong here. ~ lav-chan @ 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm of the opinion that individual churches or parishes are generally not notable, unless the church has been subject to media coverage or the building itself is notable. -- Merope Talk 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you misunderstand what a church is about. The church is the people, not the building. What we need is a set of criteria written that establishes the notability of a church. (JROBBO 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Agreed. What's the procedure to establish such a criteria? And is it possible to hold off on deleting any of the 3 articles that are up for discussion until something is established? - Jasonb 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could try something at Category:Wikipedia_proposals under a notability proposal - I think some things have to be established rather than every church article simply deleted. While I don't think every church is worthy of inclusion I feel that there are some notable churches that should have articles but have had them deleted. I feel there should be a hold on all church deletions until something is established on their notability. (JROBBO 04:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete nn parish; parishcruft, would set a bad precedent to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is "parishcruft"? (JROBBO 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
See Cruft#Popular_culture. The usage of the parish prefix above I'm assuming is Carlossuarez46's way of saying it relates to a church. -- Longhair\talk 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem although with the word cruft is that it is in the opinion of some just a way of getting about the WP:CIVIL policy when talking about ones personal opinions. Cruft for one is anothers valuable jewels. Why should personal opinions of a few editors in a tiny secluded discussions contribute to the overall scheme of things. Ansell 07:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo verifiable claim of notability. Notable churches could have articles, but not every church. Notablilty does not equal mere size.Edison 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 02:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non-notable church. -- Longhair\talk 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I withdrew my comments. -- Longhair\talk 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable individual Church location. Erechtheus 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable church. --Roisterer 05:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 05:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of Melbourne's largest and most well-known churches. I'll try and source this. Hopefully I'll find something online. Raffles mk 07:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Also note that a google search for "Crossway Baptist" yields over 2000 results, while "Beaumaris Baptist" (an average sized baptist church in Melbourne) yields only 39. Raffles mk 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I think Raffles mk's research has made this article notable, which is the best outcome for all. A Baptist Church in Australia with 2300 people is quite big - that should make it one of the biggest in Australia - and should make it notable. To be mentioned in the Bulletin as a mainstream media source on the rise of the churchgoing population makes it notable too. (JROBBO 10:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: External references are a wonderful thing hey? I'm going to edit my input to the effect of being neutral. -- Longhair\talk 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the references does describe this as a notable church (although I prefer references to be listed as "References" rather than "External Links"). George J. Bendo 10:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. >Radiant< 13:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this church is notable. Lankiveil 05:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Addendum still delete The new references only mention the church as asides, not as the focus of the article. The sole claim to notable I've seen so far is size (about 3000 on Sunday). (For the record, I find that kind of creepy.) Does that make it notable? I can see arguments either way. - Richfife 18:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think that size makes it notable because it means it is the largest Baptist Church in Australia. The article should probably be expanded (by someone more familiar with them, I know of them from being in a Baptist Church on the other side of the country) to include information on that status as one of the "flagship" churches and also about the stuff they do with their influence as one of the larger churches, such as their conferences to build into other church leadership. -Jasonb 13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, If the largest church in one of the largest denominations in Australia is not notable, then what churches are notable? More members means more money, more influence with politicians, more media coverage, more charitable works etc. By Australian standards, 3300 members is extraordinarally successful. Raffles mk 06:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that the church is indeed notable, based on the discussion above. Unfortunately, the article and external links/references to date don't yet make it clear. I think we should have an article on the subject, so I can't say deletion is the right option. But the article also doesn't meet my standards for a keep opinion. If anyone wants to work more on this, request userification, and bring it back when the article meets the standards at WP:INDY. GRBerry 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't the article be kept and then fixed if there is a minimal case for notability? (JROBBO 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Keep there is now sourcing attesting to its size, but it is minimal. I would be far more comfortable if a broader case for notability could be made. - TewfikTalk 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely that means though that there IS now a case for keeping this article? Perhaps Raffles mk can do some more work on it and integrate the article, get more references, etc. (JROBBO 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep But it needs to be re-written, to bring the media references into it, as they make it notable, or at least somewhat more notable than your average church. --Michael Johnson 01:32, 11 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyrias, the Aegadian Isles

Incomplete nom started by 198.80.153.10, I'll ask them to fill in the reason. Yomanganitalk 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The user's reason is given on the article's talk page: Since this game is not likely to progress without the Rapture language, lost it's license due to IRE, and will likely be radically different now, I think the entry should be deleted for the time being until it reaches another phase. ~ lav-chan @ 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See shutdown announcement from the game's maker here: [38]. EdJohnston 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now I am one of the two people that ran the company, the one that actually did the work. Due to my partner being unable to make sure we had the licenses we needed, the game is dead and this page should no longer exist. Thanks. PR Baram 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability (even for a shutdown), TewfikTalk 16:07, 10 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 speedy redirect to Beam me up, Scotty, as a duplicate article. Always remember that a new badly written article with a Geogre's Law title might be a duplicate of an existing article with proper punctuation and capitalization. Uncle G 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beam me up scotty

Delete: Little encyclopedic value.  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - probably a contraversial AfD this one, but I don't believe it has any encyclopedic value, or potential for future growth. There's not much more that can be said about it other that it's a catch-phrase from Stra Trek. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It might deserve a place in the Star Trek article, but yeah. ~ lav-chan @ 17:11, 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 Speedy Delete G11 (spam) by User:Eagle 101. ColourBurst 22:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheAsylum

Non-notable event. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 17:32, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eye (2007 film)

I prod'ed this one due to lack of sources. Prod was removed without any sources being provided. Edit wars continue between editors picking up their rumors from different sites. I can't find anything verifiable from anything like a reliable source. Verify and source the article, or get rid of it. Fan-1967 17:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article is very sketchy and quite undocumented. Might learn more about the topic from a simple web search. EdJohnston 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that everything I can find in a websearch are rumor sites. One says it's absolutely confirmed that Goran Visnjic will star. Another says for sure it's going to be Thomas Jane. IMDB says the movie is "Negotiating to shoot this winter". A good deal of the time on films "in development" at this stage, the movie never gets made at all. Fan-1967 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree this entry should be deleted because of lack of verifiable sources. Also, if anyone can manage to put a freeze on the hysterical "or else!!!!!" ranting (see history comments) of the Goran Visnjic fan who keeps editing the page, it would be wonderful. 17:37, 9 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete until such time as it becomes notable; the IMDB discusses plenty of 'maybes' that should by no means be included on WP, TewfikTalk 16:09, 10 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 speedy delete for several reasons. First, this is a wholly unsourced potentially libellous article about a real person, an attack article. Second, seeing how short Anita Barone is, the idea of having a separate article for an individual incident involving that person is just silly. Third, for a current event involving a television actress that purportedly took place 4 days ago, there is zero coverage on BBC News and nothing locatable via Google News. Fourth, the purported news article linked to by the article is bogus.

I warn the editors who are contributing this content that further attempts to reintroduce this content without citing sources will result in loss of editing privileges. We don't want editors who make these sorts of edits. If you are not prepared to cite sources, real sources, you will be shown the door. Uncle G 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Barone and the ASDA Theft Scandal

While this incident may not meet WP:HOAX criteria, I am unsure of its value to this encyclopedia, hence the reason it's nominated for AFD here. Blangibillock 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as possible hoax. Nothing on google news regarding this. --NMChico24 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax and/or for ripping off Harry Potter title constructions. -W guice 18:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is no hoax, it's a slow-burning story, believe me, this should be on CNN with Anjali Rao or Lola Martinez. --Coxingle 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above from Coxingle. --Oasis9 18:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable story, famous person, not a hoax - I know someone who was there at the time. --DaceMaker 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a real, verifiable incident. Believe me, it is not a hoax, it is a proper encyclopedic article. Even WoW can verify its true. --QanderVerrs 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — QanderVerrs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy delete G10/A7 as attack page w/o sources, per WP:BLP. I've slapped a {{db-attack}} tag on this per WP:BLP; anyone who removes it before an admin reviews it will be reported on WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI. --Aaron 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed - not a dbattack. -QanderVerrs 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Template removal rverted, QanderVerrs given final warning. Next step is referral to WP:AIV for blocking if it occurs again. WP:BLP is not a "recommendation". --Aaron 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy per BLP JBKramer 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Hell, even if this was a verifiable incident, it would not need its own article for any reason whatsoever. -- Kicking222 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, real incident no blp violation. --Coxingle 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, salt the earth, and block Wildthing61476 19:47, 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. —Xezbeth 09:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Octogon

Delete advertising/spam for a group that isn't well-known. Mindmatrix 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article creator just removed the AfD tag. I have warned him on his user talk page and put a {{db-spam}} tag on the article. --Aaron 18:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My apologies Aaron. I am noticing a learning curve in regards to creating new content on wikipedia.org.
I am doing my best to edit the page to be more of an encylopedia article.
Please forgive the removal of the Afd tag if at all possible, and hopefully I can get the hang of this, and continue to use Wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjrr (talk • contribs) 14:22, October 5, 2006
  • Comment: Welcome, Gjrr. It's nothing personal; the message I put on your user talk page was just what we call a template, basically a cut-and-paste generic warning. You're quite right that there's a learning curve here, and we all make mistakes along the way. However, you really need to read this page and make quite sure that your article contains proper citations, or else the other editors here will probably vote to delete it. Feel free to post here if you have any questions. --Aaron 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have edited the page and would like the chance to continue to do so. Please let me know if I am in compliance with the terms; and offer any suggestions, ie; adding Creative Commons and Open Source elements as I continue to edit.
  • Comment - If this is deleted, it should probably be redirected to Neuromancer, as purple octagons are a fictional street drug in that novel. It's not such a big deal that I'd dab it if we had this article here, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VSCA - Gjrr - wait until someone else writes you up. -- RHaworth 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the Pulp Fiction show seems to be somewhat popular, the group still lacks notability. TewfikTalk 16:20, 10 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 or Merge to Ohio's 3rd congressional district. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be resolved outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Richard Chema

Yet another political candidate. Nehwyn 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:C&E in its current form. Until and unless someone creates and fills U.S. House of Representatives election, Ohio 3rd district, 2006, this article shouldn't exist. --Aaron 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree that election page should be created instead, or wait until person is elected. --plange 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ohio's 3rd congressional district, where there is a section on the upcoming election. Is there a wiki-project on US congressional elections/districts that could co-ordinate these articles?Catchpole 08:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major party candidate to US House; former JAG corps; won 75% of the primary vote; etc. WP:C&E, which is not binding, says that lack of an election article is not a reason to delete a candidate's articlce. -- Sholom 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Catchpole, TewfikTalk 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've improved the article a bit; sounds like an interesting guy. John Broughton | Talk 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or proposed WP:C&E. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no harm is keeping this around. If he wins the election, you'll have to create it anyway. If he loses, delete it then. Peyna 21:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Said persons has non-political reasons to have an article, though. (Notability of a family incident as a way to end a political career.) --Nehwyn 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I should also bring up the cases of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Thomas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kagen for relevant considerations on evaluating candidate articles. --Nehwyn 22:11, 12 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 obvious redirect. I merged one line into the new article. trialsanderrors 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Roughness(album)

Duplicate content: there's a better, properly namespaced version of the article already at Necessary Roughness (album). W guice 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, i'm not that familiar with deleting stuff, only put something up maybe once or twice before. i'll remember it for next time -W guice 18:12, 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 - there is agreement that it scrapes through WP:SOFTWARE and there was also a request for reliable sources which a Sky News article and the PC Gamer article just about fill. 99% of the content of the article could still be removed on the basis of being original research though, so it needs cleaning up and could be proposed for deletion again if no work is done on this (and please check WP:RS to see what reliable sources are). - Yomanganitalk 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Battles

Contested prod, article doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE and is also a how to guide/game guide which is not allowed on Wikipedia Whispering(talk/c) 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. The modification is one that deserves no notation and should be removed from the memories of everyone.

* Strong Keep - Featured in PC Gamer UK, even included on CD. Notable, most popular JKA mod. How-to article feel is being cleaned up, and just three days ago I asked for comment on this article. Cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not a rule. Not to break WP:AGF, but I question the spirit of this nomination - user has been involved in a series of mod deletions recently (see his talk page). Wooty 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It meets WP:SOFTWARE barely but it's still a game guide. Whispering(talk/c) 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, "needs cleanup" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you'd review the history of the article, you'd see that extensive work is being done to improve the prose of the article. Wooty 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Appearing on the CD doesn't make it notable. An absolute assload of stuff makes it onto cover CDs, single player mods, random maps etc. What would make it notable would be multiple references from reliable sources, PC Gamer is one of them, but it'd be nice to work more in. - Hahnchen 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note - Actually, I just took a look at that source, and its not that great. It's absolutely tiny, I thought you were referring to a full page review, or even a half page review. If thats the best that you can come up with then I would vote to delete. You can see another AFD for a game mod where I've argued to keep. If you can promise further upcoming sources, then it'd be OK. - Hahnchen 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That mod also had no cited sources and its like a half page of text...Yzmo 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right now it doesn't, but if you see the AFD, there's multiple print references, including a double page spread in a French gaming magazine. - Hahnchen 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Movie Battles was in PC Gamer.. which is a very big gaming magazine.Yzmo 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that u have NO VALID REASON for deletion, thats the point. No citing is just no valid reason, it would be better if u could say exacly why u want it deleted, and just why u want to clean up the game mods section...Yzmo 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there still aren't multiple external sources, TewfikTalk 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But thats no valid reason to delete the whole article ;), but im aware of this, and im trying to put in some more sources, but that isnt so easy as the text is written by people who play the mod and write from what they see/know from ingame..Yzmo 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this discussion dead??Yzmo 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But at least half of all the articles on wikipedia have no sources or anything like that, and there ARE some sources in the arcticle, but its hard to write about a mod without using the info u have in ur head which u got while playing..Yzmo 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yzmo, that's invalid reasoning. Satori, WP:CORP does not apply to game modifications. As stated above, Movie Battles does pass WP:SOFTWARE (though barely), and cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Wooty 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon what authority do you state so unequivocally that a game mod program is not a product or service covered by WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services? Once the proposed WP:SOFTWARE becomes a guideline, that will apply, but until then WP:CORP is the appropriate standard for notability. But more importantly, my opinion was based primarily on failure to meet WP:V, which you have neglected to address. --Satori Son 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Comment You can verify the Article by playing the mod.Yzmo 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A very limited feature in PC Gamer doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:RS. If you have to verify the article by "playing the mod", it probably shouldn't have its own article. Wickethewok 17:31, 13 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article has been on wikipedia for at least 2 years now.. and NOW you want it deleted, and why isn't a bad article better then no article at all?Yzmo 09:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What Yzmo said is plain logic, a bad article is much better than no article. Simple as that. Dirk Lightstar 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete [Cid88] If your going to enforce this policy with the Moviebattles page, you may as well enforce it with the Nuclear Dawn, Natural Selection, Science and Industry, Alien Swarm, True Combat Elite (which is known to site no sources, but has no deletion notice), etc mod pages. TO be frank, very very few mods fit Wikipedia's rules, so you may as well delete all the ones that don't fit, or don't delete at all. As it is, the mb page is longer and actually sites a source, unlike some of the pages I listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.200.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Have patience. Many editors have been going through mod articles and finding the ones failing guidelines and policies. If you wish to help with this process, you are of course welcome to. I assure you no one has anything against "moviebattles" personally. Wickethewok 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - In looking for citations I've pretty much come to the conclusion there aren't any, and the article should be deleted, even if it is notable within the JKA community. Abstain - New sources. Wooty 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete [ACiD]How about moviebattles.de or ModDB for verification. As one of the developers I can vouch for this articles accuracy (and so can our official on-site guide), and I must say I fail to see how a mod with hundreds of thousands of downloads, millions of hits cannot be notable when it has had a pc gamer mention/mini review and cover cd, a 2 page spread in the french magazine, and been the full focus of a sky news article on mods (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13209702,00.html for your reference). To make matters worse there are mod information pages hosted on wikipedia about mods that I personally know have had only a few hundred players at best, and seem spared from this sort of bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.31.209 (talk • contribs) — 86.1.31.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment - Vouching for an articles accuracy yourself does not make it vefifiable, a reputable third party source must be used, and articles written from one's own knowledge (without such sources) can be deleted as original research. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - [ACiD] As far as I am aware(till now having no involvement in this wiki) the article was written primarily from the guide hosted upon our own website, www.moviebattles.com, but as mentioned moviebattles.de is a third party source that could be cited, and on the notability front for wp:soft guidelines pcgamer and sky news are hardly questionable sources, I also might add that comparisons with mods such as science and industry really betray a lack of knowledge about the video game industry, given that hl experienced media sensationalism, while jka is a practical blackout.
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is Wooty, too lazy to sign in. Another source has been added. 63.227.185.86 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now it looks like you scan though the rules of Wikipedia to find one which allows you to delete the Movie battles article.Yzmo 10:16, 15 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 and protect against recreation. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander "Sasha" Spivak

This was speedy deleted a couple of days ago and it has returned. Artist does show on Google, but I couldn't find any reviews, etc., that would show that this artist satisfies the artist notability of an enduring legacy. plange 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, then protect. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Protect Add deletion history to the talk page to further explain why the page is protected from recreation. EVula 04:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Protect per EVula, TewfikTalk 16:29, 10 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoreVault

NN. Fails WP:CORP. Unsourced. Delete --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A8, copyright violation. (It's pieced together from several websites.) Or speedy delete via WP:CSD#G11, which I still don't trust. -- Merope Talk 18:53, 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. Nonnotable. El_C 08:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Alliance of America

Apparent self-promotion of a very small group that does not seem to have done anything particularly noteworthy to date. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article makes no assertation of notability --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as User:Maelnuneb. Demiurge 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, the article makes no assertion of notability whatsoever. Two, much of the text has been copied and pasted from the group's website. Three, there are no Celtic political prisoners held captive by the UK. Put it all together and you get delete. Picaroon9288 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. Non-notable organisation that has achieved nothing. 2. The general cut and paste nature of the article seems in itself to make it a clear case of advertising by the group, I've maked this article for copyvio before, but it somehow managed to survive 3. Very POV and potentially misleading article, I don't think it does Wikipedia any favours to promote this groupMammal4 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC) -Keep I've changed my mind here, now I think that it should probably stay but needs to be extensively rewritten to remove ambiguity as per my previous comment below Mammal4 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think most people agree that the claims from this group (Cornish political prisoners, occupying forces in Wales etc) are farcical, however if these are the views of the group then it is acceptable to report them, but this should be done in a neutral style, which this article does not (i.e statistics for murders in Cornwall by loyalist death squads (0) with a reference) Any intelligent person reading it can then make up their own mind what type of group this is. Mammal4 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is as noteworthy as thousands of other Wikipedia articles about small clubs or societies. Could it be that certain contributors here do not agree with the POV of this group and this is the reason they want it removed ? Gulval 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because we have thousands of other small, non-notable clubs and societies with articles doesn't mean they pass notability; nor does their existence mean that the Celtic Alliance of America passes notability. And before accusing the above supporters of deletion of pushing a POV, I'd like to suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Picaroon9288 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I certainly can't think of a reason why Wikipedia should have this article; the group's non-notable and may well have begun this article to increase its visibility and Google hit count. On the other hand, I don't see that we gain much by deleting it. As long as the article's written so as to be NPOV, it seems harmless to me. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason we shouldn't have it is that this encyclopedia has notability guidelines. If the article fails notability, as you agree, then why shouldn't it be deleted? It is one less article to be cited as proof that non-notable organisations have articles on Wikipedia even if they shouldn't. Picaroon9288 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmyes... Okay, the CAA is (as far as anyone can verify) a website and a discussion forum with a few dozen members. So it falls within the ambit of our notability guideline for web content, none of whose criteria the CAA meets (as far as I can tell). I'm changing my vote to delete, at least for now. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I need to know more hard facts about this group before I can make a judgment.--MacRusgail 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The terminology used by the Celtic Alliance of America might be expressed somewhat in strong terms but essentially Cornwall is in effect a National Minority held as a subdued nation by the UK government. For those interested in respect of Cornwall a case has been presented to the European Court of Human Rights by members of the Cornish Stannary Parliament in respect of alleged violations of the European Convention of Human Rights and on the April, 13 2006 the Court acknowledged receipt thereof.Jowan99 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thats all well and good and I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but the article does not talk about Cornwall as a subdued national minority, but uses phrases such as "loyalist death squads" and "political prisoners" with respect to Cornwall. Where are these political prisoners? I also don't remember any loyalist death squads when I was growing up, although Penzance can resemble a war torn state on a Saturday night ;) Mammal4 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have visited the site in question and do not read the points you raise as you quote them, or specifically applying to Cornwall, but only if such a case were to exist that the CAA would highlight such actions. The ongoing contention over Cornwall within these pages does point to something being seriously wrong and depending upon which side of the fence one sits as to whether this is seen as pure evil [my position] or a nonsence [the Imperial view] -- TGG 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The CAA state that they are against "loyalist death squads", "racist neo-nazi groups", and what they refer to as "occupying British and French forces within Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany, and Wales" quoted from the article itself but also simmilar wording on the website - I can't really see how this can be read any other way. If what you say is true then its just the wording that is wrong and not the sentiment.Mammal4 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It presents another external view that potentially brings the iniquitous position of our Cornish Duchy into focus for the Cornish worldwide and anyone else genuinely interested in our Rights. The fact that Cornwall is included represents just another facet of what Philip Payton sub-titles his book "The making of modern Cornwall" as, Historical Experience and the Persistence of "Difference". It seems that the page needs to be rewritten to remove the cut & paste feel and, possibly, the organisation needs to be approached on that basis? -- TGG 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, do you think that it is notable, or do you just like the group's point of view? I can't tell from your comment. Could you clarify? Picaroon9288 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel, personally, that the notable aspect rests in its particular focus of a Celtic Alliance at a time when we are being actively 'encouraged' to believe that the Celts are a myth! It is however, possibly, too early to judge whether or not it may achieve notability through successful activity -- TGG 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An even bigger problem than notability is verifiability. There is no source for the existence of this group other than its own website, and a few posts on web forums and bulletin boards. Demiurge 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. But notability ties right in with that fact; if it isn't known beyond its own website and a few web forums, how can it possibly be notable enough for an encyclopedia article? Those who say keep, I'm asking you. Picaroon9288 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it doesn't need it's own entry but the way external links are also rejected I wouldn't suggest making this one somewhere either. It does have interesting information. Wikipedia is on the verge of becoming a creation of elitists - who want to make it another Britannica. What does it matter how many edits or contributions someone makes? ELITISTS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.224.249 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 October 2006
Its just a way of highlighting potential sock puppets which always crop up in these sorts of discussions, it isn't a reflection on the viewpoint itself. People tend to trust comments more if they can be sure that they aren't just one person with five accounts trying to make it look like there is a great deal of support for something, and an accounts activity is a way of guaging that Mammal4 06:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first, second, and third edits are to the above paragraph. Picaroon9288 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability, lacks sources of external coverage. Catchpole 09:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, pure and simple, TewfikTalk 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a small group, they are gaining notability in a lot of Celtic FC and celtic culture websites, and should be gaining members in the medium to long term. Maybe list them on a "Small Orginisations" category? Members of the Sevan Stars group at Yahoo ( [Seven_Stars_Republican_Socialist_News@yahoogroups.com] )[39] Eiri Amach 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If an organization creates an article about itself on Wikipedia, and if the Wikipedia article is copied onto the many mirrors and spin-offs that use Wikipedia's content, then the organization's visibility and Google search ranking will rise. It's giving those organizations an unfair advantage, and frankly advertising isn't what Wikipedia is for. I'm not saying that's what's happened here, because I don't know for certain; but it wouldn't surprise me that the CAA has gained a higher profile since this article's been on WP. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:47, 11 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. -- Steel 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 4

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. With PlayStation 3 still unreleased, there simply is not enough verifiable to say about the PlayStation 4 that would allow it to have its own article. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Edward Wakelin 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Merope Talk 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tani unit 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even the sources cited say that any information out there consists of "wild speculations". Crystallina 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though one because even if it's deleted, someone will end up making an article anyway. - Chronos 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect The last time this was nominated the consensus was to turn it into a redirect to PS3, but that obviously didn't stop someone from recreating it. There won't be any real info on this system for several years. TJ Spyke 20:34, 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. Kusma (討論) 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground rules

Every section of the Ground rules article lacks references and therefore constitutes original research. No effort is being made to add references. Rather than delete all sections as original research, it makes more sense to delete the entire article. Besides the original research problem, the following are additional reasons for removing the article:

  • Businesses sometimes do use ground rules for meetings, but the list of rules in the article may be considered arbitrary at best and representing a particular business philosophy at worst (POV).
  • Does anyone besides the editors of this Wikipedia article talk about Congressional Standing Rules as "ground rles"? If not, then the article is invoking the view that any set of rules can be considered "ground rules." This page should then be replaced with a re-direct to the Wikipedia page on Rules.
  • Baseball does indeed have ground rules. But there is already an article on baseball ground rules in Wikipedia: Ground rules (baseball). The baseball ground rules alone are not a justification for keeping this article.
  • Psychotherapists also use ground rules for therapy. However, as with the business ground rules, the list of rules in the article may be considered arbitrary at best or reflecting a particular therapeutic approach at worst (POV).
  • People in open marriages, such as swingers and polyamorists, often talk about having ground rules for their relationships. I had written a separate article on relationship ground rules that referenced all material to research conducted by PhDs and published in scientific books and journals. That article was, ironically, deleted as original research. (I was not the author of any of the scientific studies cited in the article.) The paragraph remaining in the ground rules article does not contain the referenced material and hence fails the original research criterion.
- kc62301 October 5, 2006
  • Delete That which is not original research is a dictionary definition. Guy 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per that guy up there. -- Merope Talk 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per zat guy. The article is essentially a (vague) unverified dicdef with numerous arbitrary examples. The "government" section is completely unsubstantiated. Neither law nor government speaks of "ground rules", a ter that, at most, would be a colloquialism used to describe the real terms to a lay-person. Agent 86 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Revise, this could be a meaningful article of the examples weren't so haphazard and it had better research. If that's not possible, then it would be better for something like wikionary. -- Craigtalbert 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article would need a serious overhaul that it doesn't seem to be getting. --Matthew 01:46, 11 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 already merged, redirected. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguish

Non-notable fictional language -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC), User:Parsssseltongue attempted to close this discussion with the comment "Speedy merge and redirect". Non-admins have never been permitted to speedy-close deletion discussions except in blatently obvious cases of vandalism. I can find no evidence that this was anythong other than a good-faith nomination. While Parsssseltongue is entitled to his/her opinion, there are no grounds to unilaterally close this discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pingu, I suppose. Danny Lilithborne 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge. Daniel.Bryant 05:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, non-admins are allowed to close discussions when there's a clear consensus to keep, or a conclusion has otherwise been reached. I'll push this nomination a step closer to a consensus to Redirect. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but closing it as "concensus" when not a single person has given their input is not allowed - see WP:DELPRO. Daniel.Bryant 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is indeed correct. On the other hand, a merge/redirect doesn't have to go through AfD anyway (though asking people on the Talk page is generally considered a Good Thing). Zetawoof(ζ) 02:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. I wonder how much attention a talk page discussion would bring on this topic, however. Daniel.Bryant 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. RickReinckens 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect The material is already in the parent article. Also admonish Parsssseltongue (talk · contribs) for out of process closure. Non-admins should not be closing debates that have not run the full period. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 7 to keep, 12 to delete (including the nominator). This is a very thin margin, and a renomination to get a wider sense of the community would not be out of order. -- BD2412 talk 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Glomp

Non-encyclopedic neologism; little more than a dictionary definition. Oh, don't worry if we delete it, Urban Dictionary has 12 definitions. Paul 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. anyone citing this as a reason to keep should eat cruft.[reply]

  • Delete, rambling dicdef. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real method of showing affection. Kappa 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting and informative, particularly in relation to anime fandom and internet culture. Some of it probably should be rewritten to sound more encyclopedic, though. Kamezuki 06:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per かめずき. —RaD Man (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colinmac 13:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Paul. Sad as I am to lose an article which contains the enlightening example Tape this to your butt; I'm going to go on the other side of the room and glomp you, it is indeed a rambling dictionary definition. Peeper 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a dictdef. This is a dictdef. Granted, the etymology and examples belong there more than they do here, but most of this article is encyclopedic in nature. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The encyclopedic content is not very encyclopedic, and what's at stake here is a pop culture ephemera. Where is the documentary evidence? Where is the verification? Is this original research, or can we find references? Geogre 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. --Mecanismo 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and more than a dicdef. It could use some cleanup and expansion, though.-Fang Aili 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glomp then weak delete, per Geogre. I agree with Peeper about the enlightening example. Barno 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, ephemeral forumese that will doubtless soon disappear. This belongs on Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Dottore So 19:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verified, no sources. Non-notable even if verified. Quale 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rubbish examples and dictdef. Unless you can go into the origins of the glomp and it's significance in the world outside of cosplay, I think it would warrant an article. But it seems very neologist to me. - Hahnchen 00:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems more than a dictdef to me, includes history, etc. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable IRCruft. Nandesuka 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I'd like the phenomenon to go away, this is, sadly, widely-known in anime circles and is widespread especially at cons. And the article itself seems fine. RADICALBENDER★ 19:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Think: is anyone going to care about this word/"phenomenon" in a few years? This kind of stuff is going to hurt Wikipedia in the future. WP can either be a legitimate encyclopedia or a snapshot of what 12 year olds were talking about in the early 21st century. Paul 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Perhaps this should be moved to the Wiktionary until such time as more information about the subject can be appended. --ThatNateGuy 00:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. I'm going to add a {{cleanup}} and maybe add a References section. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Yadgaroff

Non-notable person. Article is nearly unsourced, and nothing in the article or the references shows any evidence that this person satisfies WP:BIO. Valrith 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MD of a company that may meet WP:Corp but we do not have an article on them yet. Catchpole 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though the company, Allenbridge Group PLC, seems to pass WP:CORP based on this page's sourcing. - TewfikTalk 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, Both Allenbridge Group PLC and Anthony Yadgaroff pass based on their noteriety in the Hedge Fund and Finance community both in London and elsewhere. Anthony Yadgaroff is a pivotal figure and has been cited in many print media articles. Analysts under Yadgaroff's direction and in his employee have been featured on MSNBC and Fox television news shows. This article just needs time to be properly sourced. User:Howard352
  • Comment. The following Keep message was posted on my talk page: --18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have had a look at the WP: BIO page and do believe that Anthony Yadgaroff satisfies two of the categories, namely:

- The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field; and also the alternative test

- Google Test - Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google or other well-known Internet search engine?

With this is mind, I would appreciate it if you could reconsider the deletion of this article.

Many thanks. Kimwatkins 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus-- keep. AdamBiswanger1 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Steinbeck

I'm bringing this to AfD in hopes of clearing up notability. An article on this author, written in part by User:Nsteinbeck, was speedily deleted on 29 Aug. I think co-author of the critically acclaimed memoir is a claim of notability, so AfD seems a more appropriate venue. Article is currently a copyvio from the author's web site [40]; unsatisfactory permission to use this text was given at User_talk:Nsteinbeck. As to WP:BIO, she has written one book, which appears not to have done particularly well, although the subject of the book is quite notable. Amazon page contains reviews from Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, but in a quick google I don't see a lot of other reliable sources discussing it. I do not have a strong opinion, but would consider this a very weak delete. If kept, of course, the article needs to be renamed and rewritten to avoid copyvio. bikeable (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure what the consensus view is of bringing an article to AfD that is clearly a copyright violation, but there appear to be no reliable sources that would allow verifiability anyway... Valrith 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Valrith 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but stubify. The book is notable, but practically nothing in the article is verifiable from reliable sources. Fan-1967 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, good point. I stub-ified it, removing the copyvio rationale for deletion. (This does not, however, constitute a change of vote for me [yet]). bikeable (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google News Archive shows that there are some reliable sources available about her if necessary. [41]. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give permission for Wikipedia to use the material on the Nancy Steinbeck and John Steinbeck IV sites at www.nancysteinbeck.com. Could someone please change the title name from a small "s" to a capital one in "Steinbeck"? Thanks, Nancy Steinbeck

  • The issue is that, even if we get past the copyright issues, we have no third-party Verification of most of what's there from any independent Reliable Sources, and we have pretty strict rules about that sort of thing. I have moved the article to uppercase the last name. Fan-1967 04:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the current article is that it reads like a blurb because that is what it is. I preferred Fan-1967's stub. The article if we have one should be based on third party sources as listed above. Capitalistroadster 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like the copyright issue has been fixed. Their website shows Ms. Steinbeck's numerous key-note lectures at major venues and many positive reviews of their book.
  • Keep Her book was named among the top 10 for 2001 by Writer Magazine. Notability not an issue, copyright not an issue, and it's been stub-ified.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dufty

I'm sure he's a nice guy but he's just a high school teacher and thus fails WP:BIO. The professor test doesn't really apply but if it did he wouldn't pass it. There are no other assertions of notability. Crystallina 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nn biography. The article is littered with too many opinion statements as well (and, from the way it's written, I almost am moved to wonder if he died). Agent 86 20:14, 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.


hahaha but it was so funny. i guess only sssd kids understand it.

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

The result was Delete - since nobody can provide reliable evidence that it is another name for Yamuna a redirect is not appropriate (it can always be created if such evidence comes to light). Yomanganitalk 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalindi

No mention of it in linked article at Yamuna for which it claims to be an alternate name—and if that claim is true, this article should likely be a redirect. No real information here, talk page suggests possible confusion, has been tagged for nine months or so asking for citations and verification and nothing has been done. Gene Nygaard 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Yamuna. Google search for "Kalindi+Yamuna" confirms existence of this alternative name.--Húsönd 17:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the talk page suggestion that Kalindi-Yamuna is a different river? I don't know the answer, but I don't think we should be redirecting to our Yamuna article if that is the case. Gene Nygaard 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the Google results I checked referred to them as being different names for the same river. Often "Kalindi (Yamuna)" and vice-versa.--Húsönd 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either it's a different river, in which case this is a one line stub giving the wrong information and Wikipedia would be better off if it's deleted, or it's the same river and there's no need for this entry other than as a redirect which I don't think anybody will miss if deleted. Equendil Talk 20:14, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment searchin online has not yielded a clear idea as to the relationship between the two, though one does seem to exist. - TewfikTalk 16:58, 10 October 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, Yomanganitalk 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this being relisted? No verifiability → Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's not completely and utterly unverifiable, there are actual sources on it, even if those sources are perhaps not as robust as might be hoped for. For example, there are lots of baby names books that use it. And a few other links. Me, i'm inclined to say that this should be verifiable, but it'd probably require someone from India to do it, since they'd have access to the material. FrozenPurpleCube 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unverified. That's all that really matters, not unverifiable. It's not like it would be any big loss, a dubious at best sentence or two. If there is anything worthwhile, it may crop up again in the futre, but by someone who knows how to verify whatever information there is. Gene Nygaard 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unverified, all that means is somebody hasn't verified it yet. It is still verifiable, and I don't know about you, but when I do a search for "Kalindi River", I get some hits. Mostly stuff from babyname sites, but there are a few news sources that use the phrase, including what seems to be a report on a wetlands page and something to do with a border incident with Bangladesh. So it's not coming up a total blank. Now personally, I'd prefer something from an official Indian gov't agency on this, but I expect you'd have to be from India to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there is a suggestion of confusion, that there is no connection of this name to the Yamuna for which we have an article. Gene Nygaard 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I tried to verify it, but I can't. There are two rivers by this name, but it they aren't related to the Yamuna. Arbusto 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we have articles on those other rivers named Kalindi? FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can make them if you like. What's here wouldn't help you any even if we kept it. Gene Nygaard 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. [42]. utcursch | talk 13:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator, not to vote again but just to clarify I do not support redirect because there is no reason to believe it would be correct to do so. Gene Nygaard 15:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect, but for Krishna's sake don't leave it as is. Vectro 17:54, 13 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Runyon

Non-notable witch. Leibniz 15:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. He's apparently written a few books and he seems to have been in more hokey secret societies than the Comte de Saint-Germain himself. However, I can't quite trust a grand hermetic church hosted on members.aol.com. SnurksTC 20:41, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, no third-party reviews or mention, TewfikTalk 17:00, 10 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position paper

This is nothing but a dicdef, and I can't see how it would ever be more. Deville (Talk) 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary then. Equendil Talk 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare: Footnote. -- Zondor 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there's room in the article doesn't imply that expansion is actually possible. Uncle G 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll give you an A for creativity on that one. d:-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your energy would be better spent demonstrating that expansion beyond a stub is actually possible. Uncle G 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find it incredibly hard to believe that, in the decades upon decades of position papers being issued, the only thing that can be said about them is doable in 10 words. I'll expand it myself when I can get around to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 6 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as primarily a dicdef, enhanced only by extlinks to form a how-to manual. None of that is wikipedia-worthy. It's been a week since a pleading of "it can be enhanced" as a way to rescue it, yet it hasn't been enhanced. If someday someone wants to write something that's actually wp-worthy, then it can be recreated at that time as a viable page. DMacks 00:44, 6 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 - Yomanganitalk 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit(singer)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 19:06, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm relisting this because it seems like Fahrenheit(singer) and Fahrenheit (Taiwanese band) might both be suitable candidates for deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, expand and cleanup. Members of the band are also actors. Monni 04:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete x2 - neither of them is notable, TewfikTalk 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Duke of Duchess Street 16:14, 11 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 Speedy delete, copyvio (oops). NawlinWiki 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cavins

De-speedied because being a host on the EWTN cable network is probably an assertion of notability, but I'm not persuaded that this person is in fact notable. NawlinWiki 20:45, 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. AdamBiswanger1 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interiors by Decorating Den

Advert/Spam/Self promotion or all of the above. Solipsist 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under CSD G11. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is one source that goes towards satisfying the primary WP:CORP criterion. It's a magazine cover article. Uncle G 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. A trade magazine, with the gushy up-with-people don't-offend-our-advertisers prose? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not quite convinced it's G11 (unless bad spelling and grammar is a promotional point lost on me), but I see nothing to satisfy the criteria of WP:CORP. Agent 86 02:05, 6 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. Please note that AfD does not govern merges, 'merge' arguments must be counted as 'keep' (due to the necessity of preserving the article in some form for working with and for GFDL licensing), and thus 'delete or merge' is self-contradictory. As there is a clear consensus for a separate article not existing, I'm closing this as delete despite the confusion among the participants. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Berryhill

A non notable character who appears in only two episodes of the TV series in question [43] (check #6 on the actor list) and has limited screentime in both of those episodes. Thethinredline 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sdedeo (tips) 04:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It compliments the series of articles wikipedians have written on The West Wing characters. BCV 15:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list of minor characters if there is one. --Peta 06:04, 27 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I need further comments to see whether this character is notable enough to be kept or merged to one of the lists of characters. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - Most of the content in the article is simply episode recaps. Nothing particularly notable about this character. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:02, 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 Speedy deleted. - Longhair\talk 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun Wedding (band)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Google results for "Shotgun Wedding" are unrelated. Húsönd 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - No assertion at all of notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no importance given. feydey 21:13, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kraines

The subject has played in film and TV with roles such as "attendant", "workman", and other apparently minor roles. He has also been associated producer for one movie. Proposed deletion for failing WP:BIO Ohconfucius 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting since I don't think it was ever properly added to this page. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've just cleaned it up a bit, and added an actor stub tag in case it survives, but frankly it looks like a direct lift from various sections of IMDb, and quite possibly vanity. Certainly notability is dubious. Cain Mosni 11:49, 4 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 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. AdamBiswanger1 04:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Graf

Non-notable article about a candidate. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep. (a) Graf is the Republican NOMINEE, not just a candidate; (b) Graf is running in a district that elected a REPUBLICAN in 2004; while he isn't favored at the moment, it's hardly a done deal that he will lose; (c) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - we should wait for a month, until the early November general election, and THEN take action; (d) there have been other proposals to delete candidates for U.S. House seats; some have passed, some have failed. Citing a single AfD as if it sets precedent is misleading. (e) Is the reference to the Diane Farrell deletion supposed to be ironic? At the moment, Farrell is estimated to have about a 50% chance of winning in November (see: United States House elections, 2006#Connecticut), and wikipedia doesn't even have an article on her because no one has taken the time and effort to try to re-establish it after it was deleted in July (before the primary, for what that's worth). John Broughton | Talk 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not just a candidate, but a former leader (Majority Whip) in the Arizona State House, thus satisfying the second notability category given in WP:BIO, "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" (emphasis added). -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets proposed WP:C&E standard. --Aaron 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, former Majority Whip, State Rep.--Tdl1060 17:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominee in a closely contested election. Feel free to AfD if he loses, but it's almost a speedy keep until then. --Interiot 20:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a real candidate in US Congress election, why would this article be deleted? --CrabshackJoe
  • Keep Arbusto 04:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's as (if not more, given the seat) notable as any other candidate. -Senori 23:52, 9 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 AdamBiswanger1 04:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Paccione

Non-notable page about a candidate. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep. Not just a candidate, but a leader ("Majority Caucus Chair") in the Colorado State House, thus satisfying the second notability category given in WP:BIO, "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" (emphasis added). -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re David Schaich's point. Edward Wakelin 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Diane Farrell, this person actually won an election, being elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 2002. The Denver Post writes about the political advertising surrounding her, and also writes about her own political advertisments. The New York Times noted that she garnered endorsement as a result of the events surrounding Terry Schiavo. And she even gets coverage from the UNC Mirror. ☺ The WP:BIO criteria are satsified. Keep. Uncle G 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. John Broughton | Talk 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this campaign ad please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.49.95 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 October 2006

  • Keep - passes WP:NN. Michael 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; though the article needs to be sourced to reliable sources, I have little doubt that the information contained therein is verifiable. The article is relatively NPOV. I see no reason to refer to notability guidelines to prove that this article should be kept when Wikipedia policy does not indicate that it should be excluded; this is a candidate for a major party for a national office, in any event. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, current State Representative.--Tdl1060 17:07, 7 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 AdamBiswanger1 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry McNerney

Non-notable article about a candidate. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep: (a) McNerney is the Democratic NOMINEE, not just a candidate; he won the primary. (b) He's the Democratic nominee in a competitive race - it's one of only FIVE House races in California (out of 51) considered notable enough to include in United States House elections, 2006. (c) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - there is no really urgent reason to act now, rather than waiting for a month, until the early November general election, and THEN acting; (d) there have been other proposals to delete candidates for U.S. House seats; some have passed, some have failed. Citing a single AfD (above) as if it sets precedent is misleading. (e) And is the reference to the Diane Farrell deletion supposed to be ironic? At the moment, Farrell is estimated to have about a 50% chance of winning in November (see: United States House elections, 2006#Connecticut), yet wikipedia doesn't even have an article on her because no one has taken the time and effort to try to re-establish it after it was deleted in July (before the primary, for what that's worth). John Broughton | Talk 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria for inclusion of biographical articles are our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Being a nominee is still being a candidate, and being a candidate for elected office is not one of the criteria. The idea that we should "wait a month" is based more upon the desire to provide the publication of candidates' electoral platforms to voters during the period leading up to the election than it is on the desire to create an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publishing candidate statements to voters. A proper rationale for keeping a biographical article should be based upon our official policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:BIO. Uncle G 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if someone's goal for the Jerry McNerney article was to make it a "soapbox for publishing candidate statements to voters", they certainly failed. The article mentions his stand on Iraq (one and half sentences); that's about it for being a "soapbox". John Broughton | Talk 01:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for his non-political work. "Jerry McNerney is a nationally recognized expert in wind engineering and renewable energy." Sometimes candidates are already notable before they run for office, whch seems to be the case here. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only source for that statement is McNerney's own autobiography. The article even cites it as the source. See Wikipedia:Autobiographies#The_problem_with_autobiographies for why such things are explicitly excluded from notability criteria. If you want to hang a rationale off that statement, please cite a source other than McNerney, and other than someone (such as this) parroting McNerney's autobiographical blurb word-for-word, who states that xe is a nationally recognized expert. Uncle G 09:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to California 11th congressional district election, 2006, then this article can be recreated if he wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchpole (talk • contribs) 2006-10-06 08:21:47
  • Keep the fact that McNerney is a sufficiently formidible candidate to cause President Bush to fly all the way cross country to raise money for and to stand by the 7-term incumbent in what was supposed to be a "safe" seat makes him notable. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced to reliable sources and is verifiable. The article is relatively NPOV. I see no reason to refer to notability guidelines to prove that this article should be kept when Wikipedia policy does not indicate that it should be excluded; this is a candidate for a major party for a national office, in any event. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to California 11th congressional district election, 2006. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this is a somewhat close race and some people will look to Wikipedia as a source of information on the candidate, so the article is encyclopedic up until the point that he (possibly) loses. --Interiot 22:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referencing the Diane Farrell AfD shows that this is a bad nomination. That AfD is based on a proposed guideline and should not be used to delete an article. The same applies to this one. - Lex 15:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy is the candidate of a major political party in the upcoming congressional elections. Why would someone want to delete this article? ---CrabshackJoe
  • Delete. This clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. If there is useful information on the page then it should be merged into California 11th congressional district election, 2006, but candidates do not get an encyclopedia article unless they are otherwise notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 part of a pattern of ongoing vandalism and massive sockpuppetry, all apparently spilling out of Third briefs (AfD discussion), and including Anita Barone and the ASDA Theft Scandal (AfD discussion) and a long parade of disruption-only accounts. There's no need to waste any more time of real editors with this. Uncle G 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles underwear heist

Is this encyclopedic?? This is nominated for deletion as a possible unencyclopedic article, even if it is real. Blangibillock 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable incident, well-known, raises questions about Royal Family. Not unencyclopedic in any way. --XFowl4 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — XFowl4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete no sources to verify authenticity. -- Hawaiian717 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of sources, unencyclopedic in scope, tone and content. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources, and it is not unencyclopedic in any way. It should be a WP:GA but this is a stub that needs cleanup and a lot of work to make it a WP:GA. Take this to WP:ANI --Dertdad 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — Dertdad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Probable hoax. And, even if it were true, I find it hard to believe that the event would satifsy our notability standards. Stealing knickers, even if they're royal knickers, isn't noteworthy. -- Merope Talk 21:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The two "keep" !votes both participated in an AFD concerning an article about a schoolboy prank, which also concerned pants. My guess is that this is similar childish nonsense. -- Merope Talk 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a real incident, not a hoax. It should be a WP:GA not a stub, and it ain't childish nonsense! Oh, and men do not wear knickers - well not charles anyhow. --Dertdad 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible hoax, even if it was real it's not encyclopedic. TJ Spyke 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definite hoax. I have checked and no UK newspaper articles have mentioned "Martin Hanssen" nor any such dismissals from the personal staff of the Prince of Wales. David | Talk 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice and ban the socks from the underwear drawer. This site gets disrupted enough without this kind of idiocy adding to the mix. Sorry, but no wiki-love this time. - Lucky 6.9 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 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. Kusma (討論) 09:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Werdmuller

non notable, follows deletion of Rum and Monkey by Afd Dweller 21:45, 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 - consensus that he fails WP:BIO - Yomanganitalk 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Martina

I speedy deleted this, the Aecis put this in a deletion review, I decieded to undelete and put in a AfD so the contents of the article can be seen to all. As a result I am doing to say Neutral as I am the one who speedied this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all thanks to Eagle 101 for the way he has dealt with this. Regarding Roy Martina: the man is a notable quack. A google search for his name gives 260,000 hits. His books are sold on Bol.com, the online bookstore of Bertelsmann. Martina is a familiar face on television. My article was a translation of the Dutch wikipedia article on Roy Martina. This man is unfortunately notable. I suggest keeping this article on wikipedia. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found 295,000 Google hits. He definitely qualifies as notable. RickReinckens 23:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectful Keep per Rick. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only the advertising comittee run-in might be notable, and it is a single event. This is in addition to the dearth of sourcing. - TewfikTalk 17:11, 10 October 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The vast majority of hits in a Google search are for other individuals with the same name, not this Roy Martina. When you add "Biostabil" to the query, you get 575 hits, and many of those are simply mirrors to the Dutch Wikipedia, or to blogs referencing it. wikipediatrix 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then scrap the google test. That still leaves the Dutch language wikipedia article, the book sales and the Advertising Code committee (the official body for all commercials and adverts in the Netherlands). I agree that the article as it stands still needs a lot of work though (i.e. it's crap). Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Tewfik DesertSky85451 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I concur with Wikipediatrix. I see no evidence this person meets WP:BIO. Numerous Google hits don't make one notable; there is a reason Wikipedia:Search engine test is not an accepted guideline... because it is not a good indicator of notability. Heck, googling my name pulls well over 1 million hits.--Isotope23 20:01, 13 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football is everything

A minor advertising campaign; not especially encyclopedic. Was PRODded, but contested, so I'm bringing it here. Joyous! | Talk 22:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No real notability. Why is this ad campaign worthy of inclusion? --Brianyoumans 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, TewfikTalk 17:12, 10 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cracktown

I don't believe this band meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Joyous! | Talk 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that they are part of the up and coming ' anti-folk' movement of the UK and because of there possible future status in this movement, they should stay on wikopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.34.29 (talk • contribs) 11:00, October 9, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per anon above. If they are "up and coming", we need to wait until they have "come" before creating an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, lol - Arthur Rubin. - TewfikTalk 17:13, 10 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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani national heroes

Delete This article is nothing but Pan Turkist POV. Baku87 is doing things like this all over Wikipedia.

  • Babak Khorramdin was Persian, not Azeri, and he was not fighting for the independence of Azerbaijan, which didnt even exist until 1918!
  • Javanshir was not even Azeri, as again, Azerbaijan did not even exist during his time!

Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, pan Turkism, and nationalism. Khosrow II 22:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think any list of national heroes is going to be extremely subjective and contentious. --Brianyoumans 23:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Ridiculously POV and I doubt the subject can be covered in encyclopedic fashion and with a neutral point of view. Prolog 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no criteria. Gazpacho 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, i added the delete template to this only minutes after it's creation. The creater removed it and said they needed more time to write it. So far the only difference i've seen is the stub template added. flipjargendy 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I have removed Babak and Javanshir from the article so far, so no one gets the wrong impression while its deletion is still be discussed.Khosrow II 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The deletion tag has been removed from the article.. just so everyone knows. i do not know the reason for it. flipjargendy 22:41, 9 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 Redirect to Mutt and Jeff (spies). Deathphoenix ʕ 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Moe

Does not meet WP:V or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom --Bill.matthews 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect (Changing my vote per Uncle G below) A horrid little stub of an article, but see the link to the article on Mutt and Jeff. I think this could be a reasonable article on a bit player in history, if someone can find references for this. --Brianyoumans 00:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't appear to exist. When the wartime documents about Mutt and Jeff (spies) were declassified in 2002, there was a short flurry of news articles on the pair taken together and their activities. But as far as I can find out there's nothing on each man individually. Since the world at large doesn't treat these two as separate individuals, Wikipedia should not, either. Redirect. Uncle G 09:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, nn in and of itself, but only within the context of Mutt and Jeff (spies), TewfikTalk 17:15, 10 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 AdamBiswanger1 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Morgan

Does ot meet WP:V or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 22:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom --Bill.matthews 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- general trivia that could easily be merged elsewhere. -- Longhair\talk 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough to have its own entry, even if the info could be verified. Prolog 13:46, 6 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 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OHL (band)

Not Notable Bill.matthews 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability. Mitaphane talk 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it is notable, there are certainly no assertions of it. --Haakon 13:52, 6 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 speedy delete, no asserion of notability Guy 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mead Hall Pirates

WoW guild. Got speedied for CSD A7 three times today. I still say speedy delete though. Hawaiian717 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, your choice A7 or G4...Bingo! ju66l3r 22:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per nom --Bill.matthews 22:53, 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. Questionable IP votes attacking logical established-user votes AdamBiswanger1 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremebitz

Not notable. Appears to just be a podcast Bill.matthews 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia -- not notable, appears to just be a website. Xtremebitz is NOT just a podcast unless wikipedia is "just a website"

Podcast or not, it's still a broadcast. Besides, it's a live online radio show on the second largest alternative station online. If that's not notable, I dont' know what is.

a PODCAST is notable by Wikipedia standards. Please refer to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29

MadAlt 22:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Madalt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Many of the bands interviewed on this show are quite notable, the show attracts notable guests, who are you to judge the notability of the show? 72.135.236.226 10:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Broadcast live every week with thousands of listeners, as well as an often downloaded podcast of the live show.
  • Interviews many large bands (a list of which is on the page), who all have their own detailed Wikipedia articles.
  • Broadcast simultaneously on 3 large internet radio networks, including idobi radio.

F3llah1n 08:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: From WP:WEB: "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (#3) 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" f3llah1n (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets critera
  • Keep Definitly meets critera, its a podcast, end of story. - Tiptup300 "AmpSigz FTW!"
  • Keep Is notable, and has sources that mention it. Look down. =P

Here's a link to an outside source reporting on the show: http://www.punknews.org/article.php?sid=11760


The day Xtremebitz isn't notable will be the same day hell freezes over! Shouldn't people be able to look the show up? The show has so many listeners and it just keeps growing and it would be in wikipedieas best interest to keep xtremebitz on the site, when xtremebitz gets really big then wikipedia will be begging to have them back if they remove them.

Xtremebitz isn't just a small thing, it's big. It has listeners all over the place, it interviews bands and gives growing bands a chance to spread the word about themselves. And if a member of a band wants to look up what they're getting themselves into they should be able to using wikipedia


Xtremebitz is great, it should stay on wikipedia. Not only is it a great radioprogram but also it encourages freedom of speech. Wikipedia has lots of articles about drugs, addictive ones too. And Xtremebitz is addictive so people should know what to do if they are an addict

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with knife. El_C 07:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Forces Knife Techniques

Delete believe it or not I pick WP:NOT - as this is a guide on how to use those techniques (and is OR to boot - if little is known about those techniques how do we apply WP:V Charlesknight 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom --Bill.matthews 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - of course a man in black is going to vote that way -doesn't want his black-op secrets getting out. --Charlesknight 09:00, 6 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 AdamBiswanger1 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whore Church

Original Research, no mention of this on the web, no sources cited, no pages linking to it, no edits after it was created in March 2006 except a no souces tag, term might be derogatory to the organisations named Simon Speed 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable neologism --Dweller 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism. No sign of notability. JASpencer 17:43, 7 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 Speedy delete g1, hoax (note mention of high school PE teacher Nieves, an article I also had to speedy delete tonight). NawlinWiki 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Guzman

An obvious hoax. Article created removed prod, claiming it was all "true." Andrew Levine 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not a hoax, any baseball analyst deserves a spot on wikipedia, he is a real analyst that happened to get fired thank you. -Widereceiver19 (talk · contribs)
    • Provide some evidence that he's real. Actual baseball analysts may deserve a spot on Wikipedia, but not make-believe ones. Andrew Levine 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot find any info about him, but i saw him on baseball tonight in March and i know him well. He was an ESPN analyst, i dont know why i cannot find "real" evidence on the internet. My word should be enough. -Widereceiver19 (talk · contribs)
        • Accepting editors' words for things is what we explicitly do not do around here. The fact that it is impossible to do so on a wiki than anyone can create an account on is one of the very underpinnings of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My word should be enough. Hahahahahahahaha... no, it shouldn't. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i remember him, no wonder he got fired, but he still deserves a spot on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmersonS (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No one is doubting your word, but maybe you got the name a bit wrong? Come back with a better article when you have the details straight and have some references. --Brianyoumans 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I dont think i got the name wrong, it might not have references because he was a short lived analyst on ESPN, hardcore sports fans like the guy 2 posts above me would know him because of his crazy predictions. He was fired, but he's famous to sports fans --Widereceiver19 (talk · contribs)
  • Weak Delete If he's so famous, why is there no evidence of him on the Web? Unless a ESPN or news site can be found supporting this guy's existance, delete as nonnotable. Kerowyn Leave a note 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Additionally, the Baseball Tonight article doesn't mention him, which would be expect if he was such a character. Kerowyn Leave a note 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's not a huge character, but he was a one time analyst that got fired. He deserves an article if other pages on this site do, please keep this. You guys must not pay attention to sports— Preceding unsigned comment added by Widereceiver19 (talk • contribs)
      • Actually, I'm a big sports fan, don't remember this guy. Maybe he was the one who reported the Teeterdil results? Fan-1967 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either a hoax or a udderly non-notable individual - not one source about him?--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:V. We can't verify it, we don't keep it. Fan-1967 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Shenanigans by Widereceiver19 do not help his case at all. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 6 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 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Parade

Advertising for non-notable e-book publisher; earlier deletion contested by author. Brianyoumans 23:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, borders on csd g11. Also: "Bear Parade accepts unsolicited submissions. Acceptance rate is currently 0% for all unsolicited submissions." Right. MER-C 05:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. —Xezbeth 10:03, 6 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 AdamBiswanger1 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gymer

A discussion on whether or not to keep this article has begun on its talk page. I am giving the discussion the proper forum (AfD) in order to settle the matter. Below is the discussion thus far on the article's talk page:

This article is for a Greens candidate in the upcoming 2006 Victorian State election. There is a conflict with WP:autobiography. While political candidates (as opposed to elected politicians) are generally considered "not notable", Mary Wooldridge, another candidate for the seat of Doncaster, has an article so there sets a precedent.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose keeping this article.

  • support in the interests of balanced coverage of main candidates for the seat of Doncaster. Please note that I am also the Greens candidate for Box Hill. --Peter Campbell 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose it should be written by someone other than the candidate (please refer to Adrian Jackson's and Luke Martin's case). There must be a description about the Greens Candidate for Doncaster, but not from him.203.213.100.95 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose The article is a list of election commitments and a single paragraph of biography. While I might personally agree with the policies (especially the Workchoices bit), I don't think Wikipedia is the place for what is essentially a political statement and not an encyclopedia entry. Jeendan 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a procedural nomination only. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 02:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and therefore candidates are not considered notable unless they did something else that would satisfy WP:BIO. Mary Woolridge seems equally nonnotable (since the only claims are to her being related to notable people). There's no such thing as "precedent" for articles that are on Wikipedia and haven't had their notability tested, only articles that have been through a deletion process. And since Mary Woolridge was speedily deleted, there's no case for that either. ColourBurst 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Mary Wooldridge is still there, looking as POV as ever. --Roisterer 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mary's page seems like A7 material to me. I'll tag it. ColourBurst 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Being a candidate is not notable enough, especially a candidate without a chance of being elected. Article is also unbiographical, being mostly a policy statement to Doncaster voters. Jeendan 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database shows that his only mentions in the media have been letters to the editor. A Google News Archive search comes up with no mentions at all see [44] so there are verifiability concerns about this article. As well, it reads like a campaign brochure breaching WP:NPOV. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable candidate. --Roisterer 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Candidate is of equal notability to Mary Wooldridge, another contender for the seat of Doncaster. There is support for retaining the Wooldridge article - it has recently been "unspeedily deleted". In the interests of balance and fairness, either they both stay, or they both go. If the Wooldridge article is deleted, then I will change to my opinion to Delete Peter Campbell 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to note that even the only person arguing for Wooldridge's inclusion is basing her inclusion on the fact that she'll win, not that she's a candidate (how true that is is uncertain). This article, being nomination earlier, will be deleted first. ColourBurst 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Will become notable if elected, but not until then. Lankiveil 06:00, 7 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 AdamBiswanger1 02:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Meny

  • This is a NNBIO - just because he played with TX Tech does not mean an article should be written about him. Unless someone could list something notable he did at TX Tech (or anywhere) this article should be deleted. His website/blog had only 250 Google hits, most of them to his blog. WU03 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He isn't listed as a letterwinner in the Texas Tech football media guide [45], so that part of the article is definitely non-notable. He plans to enter the 2007 World Series of Poker, again non-notable (there were over 8,000 entrants in the 2006 event). That leaves his website, which I don't believe is notable enough. Scottmsg 03:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superstrong delete Complete vanity by a completely non-notable individual trying to insert himself into multiple WP articles, including one devoted to himself. Hey Tom, have fun finishing 7,924th in next year's WSOP main event. Aside: "Born to parents Robert (an Air Force seargeant) and Carmelita ( a filipino)" might be the best sentence fragment ever. That single line should go to BJAODN. -- Kicking222 05:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above, and per my comments on Talk:Tom Meny when the article was created; clear-cut vanity/self-promotion. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 6 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mother in Heaven

Content is duplicated on the Elohim page. Either delete or merge. Kerowyn Leave a note 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge as per above. Badbilltucker 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    • I don't see where the content is duplicated in the Elohim article. If it is, please state where.
    • Mainly unsourced.
    • No context. What religion is this? Is this article specifically discussing a Mormon theological concept or just citing that as an example?
    • Without references, this seems to violate No Original Research.
    • Weasel wording: "It can be argued".
    • Scholarly opinions differ on the interpretation of "Let us make man . . .". Protestantism and Catholicism consider it an indication of the triune nature of God. Rabbinic Judaism considers it an honorific, like the Queen of England referring to herself as "we". Considering that there are about 10 million Mormons worldwide and well over 1.5 billion Christians, the Mormon view represents an extreme minority view. WP guidelines require that articles should not include extreme minority views unless they are identified as such, to avoid misleading those unfamiliar with a topic from thinking a very minority POV is mainstream. RickReinckens 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicated content I was referring to was the sections about feminine lingustic elements associated with the Hebrew diety. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR; if it can be sourced to Mormon theology, then perhaps merge it into a relevant article there. - TewfikTalk 17:19, 10 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 AdamBiswanger1 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films generating losses

This list is generated entirely by applying subjective calculations to sparsely available and extremely unreliable figures (and usually performing the stated calculation erroneously). The standard procedure for unsourced, untrue material is to remove it. Since none (zero, a yawning void, the empty set) of the material in this article is sourced, and most of it is untrue — and the article is inherently impossible to source and maintain — the whole thing should be deleted. ➥the Epopt 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as impractical list. Since most films make losses (its a hit-driven business), this would include 60-80% of all commercial films globally, throughout cinematic history. Even if you restrict it to Hollywood, the list would be too large Bwithh 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh, this is list-C-word. Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Egads, that's a bad, unmaintainable, potentially infinite, poorly-conceived list. -- Kicking222 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. The worst losses can be covered on films considered the worst ever. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if it could be sourced, it'd be unmaintainable. — TKD::Talk 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be sourced and is useful. It's also different in purpose and design than Films considered the worst ever as some financial failures are not seen as being among the "worst films." That said it needs a cut-off, like the loss should be 75% or more as large as the budget.--T. Anthony 12:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially impossible to reliably source either total costs or revenues connected with a film. No predjudice against the creation of z sourced list of films widely considered to be bombs (e.g. Waterworld) as it might be possible to sure these issues when starting over from a blank slate. Eluchil404 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of box-office bombs is possible, but this isn't it. Perhaps someone could find a reliable source or five that rank the worst film losses of all time. As Bwithh mentioned, this list could theoretically include 60-80% of all films, making it infinitely subjective and inherently POV which films get on the list and which don't. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:17, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_5&oldid=79760391"