Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The daily reel

Reads like an ad or plushy description and has little encyclopedic significance. ~ clearthought 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the claims of the article have truth then this might be notable. As it stands, though, it looks to me like a lot of hot air; but I am perfectly willing to change my vote pending a rewrite. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, reads like an ad. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is just WP:VSCA copied from User:The Daily Reel's page ... should also AfD Jamie Patricof as part of the same self-promotion campaign (click "Half Nelson" on that page. :-) --Dennette 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like User:The Daily Reel's user page is also being used in violation of policy. fbb_fan 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:WW -PEAR 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wheel war? I don't get it. Mak (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if it is kept, move to The Daily Reel. — G a ry Kirk | ^talk! 09:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article says the site only opened in august 2006, i say its not quite notable yet, maybe in the future. --mathewguiver 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mak (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cynical 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable ad. Moreschi 14:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Summers Potterton III

(Auto)biography marked for speedy deletion, but notablity is asserted though the film credits listed. I don't believe that it establishes sufficient notablity for an article though. Thryduulf 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment copied from article talk page by Thryduulf 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Article created by Rsp3studio, so this is likely a vanity article. The subject has an IMDB page (though that does not establish notability). I am also skeptical of someone who purports to be a notable composer at age 20, but that could just be the fact that I'm old and bitter. -- Merope 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after having seen the IMDB entry. Only 2 credits for musical involvement in very obscure productions, neither of which have 5 IMDB votes yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like everyone else said, vanity. --Veesicle 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable, per WP:BIO, and absence of reliable, reputable sources, per WP:V. This guy is obviously pretty talented, and may very well achieve fame some day, but not yet. --Satori Son 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity —Khoikhoi 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Wheel of Fortune. Herostratus 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune set evolution

Utter cruft of extremely limited interest and notability. —tregoweth (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft.--Jersey Devil 01:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NoelleWiley 18:39, 1 August 31 2006 (UTC) Shouldnt really be here... Maybe catergorize(sp?) it with 'Wheel of fortune'??
Delete Crufty. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gives fancruft a Bad Name. --Dennette 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who notices these things? --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, too close to the grain for an encyclopedia. Now, the evolution of the Jeopardy! set, that's worth an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, uh, we have Jeopardy! set evolution as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep - I don't give a damn about WOF, but it is notable, and the way it's set has cahnged over time is an important part of teh show. perhaps the article could do with some work, clean up and a better title - but that is not grounds for deletion. it is not "fancruft"--ZayZayEM 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D L T (please send $250 directly to me to buy a vowel). Only notable item is the move to the electronic puzzle board, which did make news. But that is worth 2 sentences in the main article at best. —Twigboy 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune Cynical 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn —Khoikhoi 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jeopardy! set evolution was recently listed for AfD and the result was keep. Deletion of some other set evolution article in light of this may build systemic bias. Tinlinkin 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune is appropriate in this instance. Tinlinkin 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune JTRH 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune; useless information, but possibly notable for fans, and doesn't deserve its own article. --Dennis The TIger 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune. There's some bits of info here that have potential within the WOF article proper. [[Briguy52748 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
STRONG Keep or Merge - The WOF set has changed just as much as if not much more than the Jeopardy set. CrossEyed7 05:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE -- And expand if possible. --Aussie Evil 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This AFD is hereby closed; I believe merging the most significant bits of text into Pokémon Emerald and redirecting the page will be the most satisfactory outcome. —Encephalon 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marine and Terra Cave

The page is unimportant and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Those caves only play a small role in the games and don't deserve to have an article of their own. They don't have any Pokémon in them but Groudon and Kyogre. The caves might deserve a section in their articles but not an article of their own. Hybrid 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft, maybe it can be merged though, into a relevant page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Dennette 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you forget Groudon and Kyogre are legendary Pokemon? (The caves are in Emerald only, though, so...) TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokemon Emerald, as the caves only appear in that game. AgentPeppermint 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AgentPeppermint Cynical 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge: Well, I don't wanna sound like I have anything against Pokémon (I can recite all 386 Pokémon in national Pokedex order by heart, for chrissakes!), but I think there are few locations outside the big cities within the Pokémon world's main regions worthy of an article of its own on Wikipedia. In the ideal world, I think, all articles on minor Pokemon locations (anything without a gym leader, in other words) would be merged into the articles on the regions themselves, with a crisp, summarized one-or-two-paragraph write-up on each location. I assume that having separate articles on each of the game's big towns and cities is the way it should be, and that's just fine; At the very least in any case, articles on caves, forests, and other locales without gym leaders should be merged into the articles on their respective regions. By that logic, Marine and Terra Cave should definitely be merged into the Hoenn article. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fancruft. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto: Strong delete fancruft. Armon 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wheel of Fortune (American game show). I've decided to merge only the first section, on show records, and not list every grand prize winner or loser. But the stuff will be there in the history, and this is a wiki, after all. Mango juice^talk 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune

Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's "fancruft"?JTRH 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marge to Wheel of Fortune Yes fancruft, and there is a similar page nominated for deletion today as well. JTRH: WP:FAN if youre interested. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unsourced, violates WP:VERIFY. --Dennette 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If sources can be found then merge to Wheel of Fortune. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delelete unencyclopedic, unsourced, American biased.--ZayZayEM 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune --mathewguiver 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune -- JTRH 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune Cynical 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michael, et al.; those who are inclined to edit Wheel of Fortune then may, to be sure, determine to what extent the material can be sourced and is encyclopedic (I'm inclined to ascribe the appellative fancruft to all of it, but many of our game show articles, it should be observed, are replete with similar collections of minutiae, such that there appears to be no consensus for its categorical removal). Joe 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above - noteable enough for the wheel of Fortune article, but not enough to have an article of it's own. - Blood red sandman 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wheel of Fortune. This fits in better as a part of the Wheel article. Chris 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This is ridiculous. Delete it because it's unsourced? Put up an unsourced tag! Delete it because it's American-centric? IT'S ABOUT THE AMERICAN VERSION OF THE SHOW! If you want ones about versions outside of the US, then make them, but don't delete this one. Personally, I think it's too long to merge into the already long main WOF article, and I'm fine with leaving it as its own article. This is Wikipedia, for crying out loud. CrossEyed7 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with wheel of fortune article is best Yuckfoo 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid spinoff from wheel of fortune... will only clutter the main article and be spun right back off if merged. ALKIVAR™ 20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a significant addition to the sum total of useful information about the glorious and tragic history of the human race. Herostratus 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barney & Friends stage shows

Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Plus most of the shows are nevr going to be linked to. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Barneycryft. Punkmorten 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comment: there are worse lists in wikipedia. reason: I can see this list having some merit, and that more than a few (maybe not most) shows should eventually get links. Just cos its a giant purple dildo, doesn't make it not notable--ZayZayEM 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future re-creation if the links that ZayZayEM suggests do in fact materialise. Cynical 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bias tells me delete and protect with extreme prejudice, but neutrality must prevail here. Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 02:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per Omi8 below. --- GIen 08:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CloudNine Pajamas

Fails WP:CORP. Just 5 Google hits here. Delete. BlueValour 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NoelleWiley 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Not well known enough![reply]
Delete Per WP:CORP. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA created by owner. --Dennette 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating user blanked the page, so I {{db-blanked}} it. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loco Driver

I don't know what a wrestling move like "Loco Driver" is doing in an encyclopedia. This is basically a 3 sentence article if you fix it up without adding new information. It's mostly a definition and a description of how to execute it. Zephyr2k 01:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "finishing move" or a nn wrestler.--Jersey Devil 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "finishing move" or a nn wrestler.--NoelleWiley 18:37, 31 August 2006
Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wrestle and I've never heard of that. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This Is A Non-Notable Wrestling Move, Probably A Vanity Article. JIP | Talk 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too Many Capitalised Words. Oh, And Unencyclopedic.--ZayZayEM 14:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable or encyclopedic --Veesicle 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether notable or not (I believe it's the latter), the article is utter crap. Cynical 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cynical. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Barely legible scrap of information that might have a place in a broader article but not - definitely not - an article of its own. BTLizard 10:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Brehaut

Incomplete AFD nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:74.132.122.141. Procedural nomination, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He was in the Olympics! A clear pass of WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." --Daniel Olsen 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Otherwise you might as well AfD the other 171 entries in Category:Badminton players at the 2004 Summer Olympics. (Homework, people! :-) --Dennette 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympic athlete. Clearly notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having been in the Olympics only once is not in itself notable; having won an Olympic medal, OTOH, most certainly is. --Dennette 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having been to the Olympics allows your inclusion under WP:BIO, specifically because you're "notable" WilyD 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad ... that's obviously why the other 171 one-liners have articles. :-) --Dennette 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympians tend to be notable. Even the obscure ones get enough press coverage that they're miles away notability-wise from the gaming clans, micronations, forum trolls, and garage bands that show up daily on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olympics. Australian... errr... Badminton. Just Keep.--ZayZayEM 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Kelliher Samets

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:68.142.33.1. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO for lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles about subject, no national awards, no evidence of substantial contributions in her field. Fails WP:V for lacking credible substantive sources to verify article. Only 1060 general Google hits for "Linda Kelliher Samets", which boils down to 30 distinct Ghits, which suggests non-notability. I note the hits are all for WP mirrors or similar user-entered listings, suggesting relentless self-promotion. Tychocat 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no establishing of actual notability, yet--ZayZayEM 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Thoughts

Non-notable blog; previous prod removed by author of article. I get 36 Google hits on "Hollywood Thoughts" and "Crowley". --Brianyoumans 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexa says the alleged "popular" website isn't in their top 100,000, and the actual traffic is somewhere lower than five millionth. Okay... that aside, fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about it, no national awards, and I don't count the 14 distinct Ghits that the abovementioned 36 Ghits boil down to. When the counting gets that low, it's easy to see that most of the hits are from WP mirrors, and shout-outs from fellow bloggers. Tychocat 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, non notable website--ZayZayEM 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Hitter

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Wikipediatrix. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: five distinct Google hits, either from Wikipedia or not about this person, so fails WP:V unless author or someone else gives sources. Fram 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fram --mathewguiver 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources; "hit song" we don't have an article on, by an artist we don't have an article on. It exists, and has been favorably reviewed; but the review offers no indication that it is a hit, or that the subject wrote it. Vanity. JCScaliger 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we can verify or disprove the claim about him being an amateur baseball commissioner. If it's true, it just about makes him notable in my book. Cynical 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as a glaringly obvious personal attack. JIP | Talk 09:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yatfan style

More World of Warcruft. Speedy and Prod removed, article says "This term has no intentions of offending or poke fun of any person that name yatfan" Yet it reads as somewhat of an attack. Wildthing61476 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. wikipediatrix 02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline attack page. ColourBurst 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Note that stating World of Warcruft in this case is not necessary and only shows your lack of neutrality, as this is clearly vandalism and a personal attack that would have been enough for the nomination to happen. Havok (T/C/c) 09:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawat Dii Kaph

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:58.69.212.219. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN band. Possible vanity article created by what may be a single purpose account. Resolute 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given their significant similarity in names, it's possible that both of these are joke articles. Cynical 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawat Dii Khap

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:58.69.212.219. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN band. Possible vanity article created by what may be a single purpose account. Resolute 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given their significant similarity in names, it's possible that both of these are joke articles. Cynical 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lottoxp

Spamvertisement. Delete. BlueValour 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure adspam. - Richardcavell 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Zephyr2k 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, blatant spam. Uses first person pronouns. JIP | Talk 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - obvious advertisement --mathewguiver 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, spamvertisement. NawlinWiki 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam Cynical 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nawlin. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. Xoloz 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Knights

The two individuals were only "knighted" last week, and have no history at all as a tag team under this name. fbb_fan 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with King Booker's Court Clay4president 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clay Cynical 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King Booker's Court. --Satori Son 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Patricof

Reads like a vanity-like biography and has little encyclopedic significance. Obviously self-promoting. See also here. ~ clearthought 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity / advertising / self promotion. fbb_fan 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. More WP:VSCA by the author of The daily reel. --Dennette 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per everyone else. Moreschi 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nordboard

Founded in the year 2000; inactive after 3 years. Had at most 35 members. Not notable Zephyr2k 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Scottmsg 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--ZayZayEM 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. From the tone, it probably breaks WP:VANITY as well Cynical 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable vanity page. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krosork

Not notable, rambling contextless information. Richardcavell 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable Zephyr2k 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable bloke. JIP | Talk 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE--ZayZayEM 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline A7 Speedy Cynical 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sliced Bread No. 2

Another wrestling finisher. Just describes how to execute the move. Zephyr2k 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - But it needs organized. Clay4president 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Brian Kendrick. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Brian Kendrick. The article also needs to be expanded a bit. --Nishkid64 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After browsing the article Brian Kendrick, I found a link toProfessional wrestling aerial techniques. It might be a better idea to redirect there since it says that Shiranui is also called Sliced Bread #2. But I don't know. I really don't know much about wrestling other than the names of the most well-known wrestlers. Zephyr2k 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Brian Kendrick or Professional wrestling aerial techniques, whatever is most appropriate (someone more familiar with the subject than I needs to make the call) Cynical 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cynical and Zephyr2k. Hybrid 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Barney & Friends

Nonencyclopedic listcruft (although, apparently, "Barney" uses a lot of public domain songs). —tregoweth (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the article have an AfD notice? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloppy editing. :) Fixed. —tregoweth (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless without any indication of which songs are original. Gazpacho 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOZ corporation

seems like the aim of this page is to advertise the company Zephyr2k 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this really does read as a very brief advert. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam Cynical 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Deveraux

Probably hoax article. Full explanation on the article's talk page (Talk:Jean-Pierre Deveraux). In the last 20 minutes the editor, an (his?) IP, and another account have been playing games with the article, removing the cleanup tags I've added, blanking it, then restoring the content, and blanking again once I re-add the tags. Giving it the full AfD to settle the matter. No evidence to back any claims made in the article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable at best. The cited sources do not support the text of the article. The person is described as a lawyer living in California, yet nobody by this name is admitted to the State Bar of California (search here). And the diacritical marks shown on the person's full name don't appear to be consistent with French orthography. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article's creator (Knowitallexclusive - talk - contribs) also tried to add the same name to the List of billionaires (2004) page twice [1] [2]. The list of billionaires page uses Forbes as a source for on which Jean-Pierre Deveraux does not exist. User also tried to add the article The Deveraux Family which was speedy deleted. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, likely hoax. The spelling of the name Deveraǚx given in the article, with its unusual diacritical, would be unconventional in French. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified likely hoax.--Isotope23 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give appropriate vandalism warnings. Cynical 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only a hoax, but a rather dull and incredibly badly spelled one. Robertissimo 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Olympics 2026

Wp:not Eyui 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for crystal balling. If Connemara doesn't already have a mention of its potential bid, it might be a useful inclusion there (although I'll leave a decision about including a sentence of speculation backed up by a not-entirely-seriously-written website up to someone else). BigHaz 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. »c tails!« =hello?= 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate in some years. Punkmorten 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Connemara! The futures market in snow has just exploded at the news. Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Subwayguy 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there is a bidding process or something to write about. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Cynical 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there's something more substantial. In the unlikely event of it being kept, move to 2026 Winter Olympics as per all similar articles. I strongly suspect hoax, though. Connemara's hardly the winter playground of Western Europe. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon to have an article like that... --Hectorian 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature. (Wasn't this already AFD'd a few weeks ago?) 23skidoo 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, way too far ahead. Perhaps later. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Prolog 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CozyBoots.com

Spam Eyui 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability is asserted whatsoever, and it reads like an advertisement. But did we really need to bring this to afd? A prod tag would've done the trick, in my opinion. Picaroon9288•talk 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert Nigel ^(Talk) 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM - Blood red sandman 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funkitron, Inc.

See prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkitron

non-notable company Eyui 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Wickethewok 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE Do not delete. This is one of the major publishers of casual games on the internet. Scrabble was one of the first licensed games to be made into a casual game download. Scrabble Blast is one of the top played games on MSN. Poker Superstars is the top texas hold 'em game on the download sites. Slingo Deluxe is one of the top selling games in the download market. Dave635
- Comment Dave365 is the creator of the page in question. Sparsefarce 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not as per nom, but because the article seems to be more of an advertisement for this company. --Dennis The TIger 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes. It either needs to be rewritten or deleted. Certainly reads like advertisement.- ResurgamII 12:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been rewritten and added to. Dave635 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article's writing style follows convention found in other companies in space: Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_Games Dave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Founder on Gamezebo - top casual game site: [3]Dave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is similar to other companies in the space. Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_Games

A few examples of top selling game status of Funkitron games Poker Superstars: [4] Scrabble: [5] Scrabble Blast: [6] Scrabble, Slingo: [7] Poker Superstars Top Favorite: [8]

One of the top companies in the space and sponsor of Casuality (top convention in space) [9]

PR: [10] [11]

Other places on the net that list funkitron: [12] [13]

Dave635 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Same article as the one previously deleted [14], plus two sentences. This is not a rewrite. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dave635, you are right to defend yourself, but it would be better form to place the comments in line with people's suggestions to delete. Placing this up top is a bit cluttersome. --Dennis The TIger 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I slapped a speedy deletion tag on it. --Peephole 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article was deleted sometime today. Time to archive this discussion. --Dennis The TIger 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwapAce.com

non-notable websites Eyui 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable/third party sources. Wickethewok 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 3rd party sources include 2 of the biggest business magazines in Australia. References given in article. Actual publication material is held under copyright by the respecive magazines and cannot be reproduced without permission, but can be given as proof of reliability upon request Neverlosty 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the site is significant enough to warrant an entry, surely. Add to that the 3rd party sources mentioned above as well as being awarded a government grant. Littlegrasshoppa 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Note

I am not quite sure how wikipedia works, but from my breif reading on the policies, wouldn't the following awards and accolades be significant to warrant representation? For example, there are a number of independent sources that have recognised this as being significant (e.g. the Australian Government, business magazines, prominent competitions). I would think that receiving a governement grant and being recognised as one of the "top 10 coolest comapanies" in all of Australia (by a respected source) would be something that would be remembered in the future. Also that fact that there is over 150,000 members from over 140 countries is significant.

Awards and Accolades

On the 20th of March 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded a grant by the Australian Federal Government (a COMET grant through AusIndustry). ^[1]
In August of 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded the prestigious title of being one of the "Top 10 Cool Companies" by Australian Anthill magazine. ^[2]
In November 2005, SwapAce.com was placed as a finalist in the Secrets of Australian IT Innovation Competition. ^[3]
In July of 2006, SwapAce.com was recognised as part of an elite group of successful e-entrepreneurs by MyBusiness magazine.^[4]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasy

Non-notable neologism. Google brings up nothing related. Crystallina 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article doesn't seem to have done a good job defining it, which seriously challenges its notability. BigHaz 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loser-fucker

Delete neologism and original research. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a list of things made up one day. Resolute 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Deleted*snicker*--ZayZayEM 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had flagged prod. Samw 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and man, if this is the kind of unoriginal insult Gen Y is coming up with, I pity the fools.--Isotope23 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NEO. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 03:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, NEO. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? this should be speedied, as it has less than no reason to exist. In fact, the article's creator is a Loser-fucker.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ SAY-G

This article claims that the subject is an internationally known DJ who plays in Europe and North America. One would think that such a high-profile DJ would have some sort of reliable sources talking about him. Well, a search came up with a total of 260 Google hits, only 18 of which showed outside of the "similar articles" selection. [15] These articles are MySpace pages, the artist's websites, and listings of DJs, as well as a couple of articles in (apparently) German that don't seem to be of substance. Thus, I feel that verification is lacking for this article. Looking at WP:MUSIC, about the only guideline that might be met would be the appearances in North America and Europe - but again, there are no reliable sources that I've managed to turn up referring to them. So, again, I don't believe the artist meets the guidelines at all, despite the claims of notability in the article itself. Finally, the editor who has done most of the work on this article is Most Wanted Club - which happens to be the name of the subject's business. Thus I smell an advertisement attempt, and at very least a failure of vanity guidelines. Delete unless someone can magic up some sources proving anything in it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This article claims that the subject is an internationally known DJ who plays in Europe and North America."

THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CLAIM THIS !!! The only point the article refers to is that DJ SAY-G is booked in several countries. This does not mean that he (or whoever worte this text) claims to be internationally FAMOUS or KNOWN all over.

" 260 Google"

My research resulted in more results. However, this again does not deny any fact of the text given. As long as I understand the text, there is no phrase saying DJ SAY-G rules the Google Hits, nore doe sit represent his networking among international club promoters.

"appearances in North America and Europe - but again, there are no reliable sources that I've managed to turn up referring to them"

I don't know the company, but I think you can request a list of club references from Most Wanted Club Ent. with RELIABLE sources, such as telephone numbers to call and ask...

"User Name"

>>> this really lacks proof...anybody can choose any name to edit !!! Imagine you were a representative of the company and somebody judges you because of somebody chose your name.

" Thus I smell an advertisement attempt"

I don't see any advertisement attempt. It is an infomative text.

FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW, IT'S A OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO !!!

NO NEED TO DELETE !!!

James Nickels — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Nickels (talk • contribs) - this editor has two edits, one here and one to the article being considered. I've refactored comments to move them below the initial deletion reason and eliminate an unnecessary header. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The bottom line here is that there's no proof anywhere that we're being informed about a notable individual as against someone who'd like to be notable. It may not be entirely an ad, but it's not the biography of a notable individual, either, and that's what trumps all. BigHaz 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - oh, and for the record a randomly-selected sample of the German sources don't add anything much to what we're dealing with here, so we don't seem to be dealing with someone astronomically famous in the non-Aglophone world but totally unknown within it (just in case anyone's worried). BigHaz 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed wondering about that, but the awful Google translation of a couple pages suggested the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, Google translations. You've got my sympathy on that one, you really do. BigHaz 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BigHaz. Smells like vanity. Resolute 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I coincidentially read this page: Are you people, who are critisizing really into Hip Hop? Do you really know the industry? Be conscious...go ask yourself if you are a person, who really knows the DJ industry or a person who is good in Google-research? If so, go delete every DJ here, who has less than 500 Google entries (or you as an expert should tell the number)...

"not to be dealing with someone astronomically famous" >>> If so, go delete the 10 % of Wikipedia people !!!

I agree: there is nothing wrong with the text. NO DELETION !

PLEASE DO NOT OVERESTIMATE YOUR RESEARCH TALENT and I agree: ASK FOR SOURCES from the agency....and see his website for International bookings...

I ask myself if the artist even knows about all this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.96.161.43 (talk • contribs) - IP has exclusively edited the article in question. And removed the AfD tag from the article earlier. Coincidental! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the guidelines that I pointed out in the nomination. Sources, in this case, refer to reliable sources - magazines, newspapers, etc., not the company involved. It's the burden of the article editors to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the IP (over and above Tony Fox's suggestion), a couple of minor points. It sounds from your comments that you believe that Wikipedia exists to document each and every DJ in the world. We don't. We exist to document each and every DJ (or singer, ski jumper, politician, doctor etc etc) who is actually notable. There is no indication on this DJ's article or on Google that he is in fact notable. If there are other DJs listed on Wikipedia who are not notable, then they stand a high chance of being deleted as well - the fact that they're here at the moment doesn't mean that they should be, it just means that nobody's put them up for deletion yet. What I said about "dealing with someone astronomically famous" was because of the fact that some of the pages which Google threw up as results were in German. Therefore, one might wonder if DJ SAY-G was perhaps very famous in Germany but not in the rest of the world (yes, this does happen every now and then, someone very famous in one country is nominated for deletion because he/she doesn't appear famous to someone in another country). However, because I speak German, I was able to read the pages in German and determine that not only is he not notable in English, neither is he notable in German. BigHaz 07:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom (no reliable sources/WP:V). Looks like vanity/spam as well.Wickethewok 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's research and reasoning. To the anon: impassioned pleas (with ALL CAPS and exclamation points!!!) to keep an article rarely work, and indeed can often backfire. Please keep this in mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources WilyD 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Vanity.--ZayZayEM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'tis but vanity Marcus22 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --RMHED 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oy -- that photo. Robertissimo 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very convincing arguments inadvertantly being made by the original author. A DJ, of all people, who doesn't show up on Google a mere 500 times—a weekend DJ I went out with once three years ago has 860 hits, and she's NN—should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to achieve notability. Comments along the lines of "ask him, ask his agent" miss the point. If he were notable, we wouldn't need to ask his own flack about him. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Pork product - no more, no less. Terminate with eXtreme Prejudice. Cain Mosni 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPickIt

No sourcing, no reviews, no notability TerriersFan 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources given, found. Doesn't sound like a very fun game either... Wickethewok 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--ZayZayEM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but some strong arguments for delete so a future relisting is a distinct possibility depending on other factors relating to the character. Please note this article has been moved to Steel Chambers while the AfD was in progress.Tyrenius 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Enforcer

The character is not notable separately from the main Who Wants to Be a Superhero? article. There's nothing to the article that isn't already covered in the show's article. If the character should feature in either the comic or the movie based on the series then the article can be recreated but for now the article should be deleted. Otto4711 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the dark enforcer was notable in his own right just as every characher from the show not just feedback the winner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.25.96 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Not notable enough for an article. A brief mention in the main article is all that is needed imo. Wickethewok 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TV title page is large enough that it does not warrant the inclusion of this article, as this article can stand alone. notable enough subject.--ZayZayEM 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only a character on the TV show, but also a villian in Feedback's comic.--Unopeneddoor 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The character stands out from the others because he was the only one who, even after being eliminated, remained on the series. He is probably going to be featured in Feedback's comic book, and therefore, he is noteable. Also, Steel Chambers' created Iron Enforcer, but Stan Lee helped to come up with the idea off Dark Enforcer...therefore, he is a character in the Marvel Comics Universe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colorblinddj (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The character is not part of the Marvel Universe. If the character even appears in the Feedback comic, something that's far from a settled question and thus irrelevant to the character's notability, he would be part of the Dark Horse universe. Otto4711 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wickethewok.-Kmaguir1 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He was featured in both trailers of the superheroes, therefore it shows he is a main character.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.150.206 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Assuming he gets mentioned in the TV show and Feedback's comic he is probably notable. Otherwise, I'm not certain that's the case.PaleAqua 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, even probably noteworthy outside of the show. Regardless, reality contestants? Absolutely worth having articles, all of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Hate to be a tool and down on someone else's article, but this person is not notible enough for an article. Being on a reality show, especially Who Wants to be a Superhero? does not yield the notibility for an article. Further, he is not a comics villain. The user(s) who made his article simply added the SHB incorrectly. Note that he's classified as a DC comics character. This is likely an error based on the similarity between the villain color and DC's color. (Don't get me started on how wrong that similarity is.) He was in the fake—I say, FAKE!—trailers because they didn't have anyone else to use. Viewers will note the other "villains" "problems" were "Chickman-man" (a giant baby chick) a fake asteroid and several pieces of footage ripped from other sci fi originals. These weren't perspective trailers for their possible sci fi films by any means. Finally, he appeared in his non-villainous costume at the end to congratulate Feedback. Feedback himself doesn't consider him his enemy. Bottomline, all we need is one article for the winner, who is and will be notible. That's not POV, either. These characters aren't even described in the reality show article. Honestly...I hate to say it, but if I've seen fancruft, this is it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-there is talk online that he is gonna be in the movie, so keep it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.143.85 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: "Talk online"? Where? A forum. Bah to that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest Feedback has his own page, and all the rest get one "Who Want to be a Superhero? Characters" page. Ace ofspade 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Steel Chamber's MySpace has made hints about the movie.

MySpace a credible source? DrWho42 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Steel Chambers runs the MySpace.
Delete--Page about an minor aspect of a reality show actor; would be more purposeful to make a page for the actor, in my opinion. -Shannernanner 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Superhero?. Someone will just recreate it if you delete it. But yeah, it's not even slightly noteworthy, and can all be summarised in the main article in a line or two. At the moment this is just a plot summary for a reality TV show. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He was the second biggest if not the most important character on the Who wants to be a Superhero? show and is most likely to appear in the comic and movie b/c all heros need a supervillain and Stan personally handpicked this man to be that supervillain.
Comment: New posts at the bottom, okay? Also, it was performance on a reality show. They hired actors as prisons, too. You think they'll call Dot back and draw her into ther comic? Gees. I'm sorry for 'tude here, guys, but am I the only realist around? How old are you people? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdraw the nomination, since it's clear that the fanboys outnumber the rationalists. Otto4711 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Damn. Well, we can always resubmit when their interest dies down. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's explained why his significance to the show makes him notable. The original proposal still stands despite those arguments, doesn't it? It's not a vote. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Good point. He's still just a fictional persona developed specifically for a reality show. There's no solid confirmation he'll be appearing outside that format and, if anything, his finally appearance without the villain costume could imply that they're actually done with him. Whatever the result, I'm game for seeing this through. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disorders of Sex Development

Copy of [16]. Wikipedia is not a speech repository. Besides, the copyright is troubling; it's licensed as noncommercial, which is incompatible with GFDL. Finally, WP:NOR, and non-notable. Melchoir 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant copyvio. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a candidate for {{db-copyvio}}. And I'd rather not take it to Copyright Problems, because the author might just change the license. Let's just say it doesn't belong here from the start. Melchoir 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research (and a speech, which counts as being an essay and exceptionally difficult to NPOV-ise). BigHaz 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does seem to be some valid content in here but anything worthwhile could be incorporated in current pages. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- shouldn't notable disorders have their own pages, and even a category?--ZayZayEM 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Intersexuality covers several. Melchoir 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete source dump. Gazpacho 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Night Gyr, but also NN, opinion not fact, "etc. etc. etc." (as per Yul Brynner)... Cain Mosni 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Andeh 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Lunn

Vanity page on non-notable college student Dsreyn 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nn-bio. Danny Lilithborne 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy delete per Danny Lilithborne. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy/Speedy delete per Danny Lilithborne. Sens08 07:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Duke Nukem 3D. BaseballBaby 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem 3D Total Conversions

This article is just regurgitated information that was copied from the main Duke Nukem 3D article. The subject in question doesn't need its own article, the content isn't unique, and the article is orphaned on top of it. Therefore, it should be deleted. TerminX 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Altair 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn game mod. Recury 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Duke Nukem 3D Cynical 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Nothing wrong with this in principle, btu there isn't enough content to justify a split. Ace of Sevens 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it isn't verifiable and including that much info in the main article on it would be poor balance anyway. Recury 14:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into appropriate Duke Nukem article --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ace of Sevens. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't seem to be any third party sources. Wickethewok 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SATS is fully accredited by South African government.

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

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

The result was delete, all WP:V information on this group is already in List of collegiate a cappella groups and there is thus nothing to merge. --- Deville (Talk) 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redefined

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is: "They achieved minor internet fame when a video of them performing a medley of Nintendo theme music was released." No meaningful media coverage, no competitions, nothing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, nothing WP:V to merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups --- Deville (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Intersection

Non-notable college a cappella group. Best claim to notability is a Valentines Day gig at their own University. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stereotypes

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only out of campus claim to notability is an alleged sideshow performance an ESPN dunk contest. Page primarily contains inside jokes and an appeal for prospective members to join. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BigHaz 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some of Wash U's acappella groups are notable, but not this one. Carom 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been cleaned up and should no longer be marked for deletion.

The cleanup is an improvement but doesn't address the notability concerns. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Tufts University, as this group is not notable enough by the standards of WP:Music to have an independent article. (aeropagitica) 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shir Appeal

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

Delete Not notable. Flying Jazz 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC. I think the CARA award is a pretty major music award for its genre. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sudenly a group wins "best mixed song" at some awards show no one has ever heard of and they are the new black? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define "Some awards show," and show what it means in the context of their genre/style, and we'll talk. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One reason that an editor might call the CARA "some awards show no one has ever heard of" is that there is not a Wikipedia article for it and it is not mentioned once in the A cappella or Contemporary a cappella articles. Based on the number of a cappella groups submitted as articles to Wikipedia and the strong desire among people associated with these groups to get free publicity, I think we need more notability than winning one questionably notable award one year. Flying Jazz 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable disagreement, I suppose. I understand the desire to curb the self-promotion, I'm just thinking this is the only one of the bloc that was nominated that seems logical to include. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Redirect to Tufts University (where they're already listed.) I find 9 newshits, 2 are "Shir Appeal appears at ...",, 7 are passing mentions. None establish the claims made in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to not enough votes Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Trialsanderrors as there is no evidence of notability. GRBerry 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Trialsanderrors. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC, but, more importantly, contents cannot be verified since no sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Peta 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete, this is a copyvio. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Hotels

Part travel guide, rest Vanispamcruftisement. Originally prodded, tag removed by author. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per copyvio [ezinearticles.com/?cat=Travel-and-Leisure:Vacation-Rentals] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Been on-wiki too long for db-copyvio, unfortunately. Luna Santin 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per betacommand. Look how many google hits I get for a search of a random piece of the article: [17]. It is obviously a copyvio and also looks like an advert. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Concept Chinese

Advertisement for a non-notable product line. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 06:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as lacks independent press coverage or other evidence of independent verifiability. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into [[Carnegie Mellon University student organizations. BaseballBaby 06:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CMU Originals

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is a planned 10th anniversary.savidan^{(talk) (e@)}

Delete and merge into Carnegie Mellon University student organizations. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no reason to delete, a redirect will do. ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carnegie Mellon University student organizations (where it already has a listing). Insufficiently notable for its own article (per WP:MUSIC) and no reliable, third-party sources (per WP:V). --Satori Son 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightshade (ensemble)

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is having recieved guidance from a member of the marginally-notable King's Singers.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No third party reliable sources of any note found on this either. Wickethewok 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are the King's Singers "marginally-notable?" They're probably the most famous classical a cappella ensemble in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HollyWeis (talk • contribs) .
That comment would be more convincing if a citation or link to an independent reliable source was added to the article, or alternatively here. GRBerry 02:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC and no links to any independent reliable sources. GRBerry 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted Thryduulf 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Kravis

Vanity page of non-notable person. Zero Google hits. Speedy deleted repeatedly and repeatedly brought back, so I'm bringing it here for some permanance. Delete and Protect from Recreation is my vote. Danny Lilithborne 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated under this AfD:

Anders c. Kravis

Not the above is now a redirect to the Anders Kravis page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, particularly the second one with the middle initial he apparently doesn't have. BigHaz 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect.TheRingess 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax and nonsense, protect the page, and ban the user --ArmadilloFromHell 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as info already in merge target. JPD (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Sinners

Non-notable college a cappella group. Claim to notability is a dubious claiam that they are "pushing the boundaries of contemporary a-cappella music." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge, if such an AfD resolution exists. otherwise, Delete - Blood red sandman 15:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect. Xoloz 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandy Taal

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside a several performances at their own Vanderbilt University. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have now added, the group is quite notable and has been contacted by many other groups across the country and the world. The Oxford Alternotives performed a tour in the U.S. and chose Vandy Taal as an a cappella group to perform with. Even though the Alternotives only sing Western music, they passed on the chance to perform with Vanderbilt's other a cappella groups and instead chose Vandy Taal. Other universities have also contacted the group, but because of financial and scheduling reasons beyond the control of Vandy Taal, the group is currently unable to travel for performances while maintaining enough money to record its songs. However, the group is currently working for an increased budget from Vanderbilt University and hopes to attain the financial means to travel off campus for performances. Docatur 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Despite Docatur's claims, none of this is backed up in reliable sources. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, info already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onoscatopoeia

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is hosting a concert for other non-notable groups. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Flying Jazz 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Armon 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Drivers To Be Smarter With SpeedAlert Software". AusIndustry. 20 March 2006.
^ "THE COOL COMPANY AWARDS". Australian Anthill. 1 August 2006.
^ "Secrets of Australian ICT Innovation Competition". IT Secrets. 10 April 2006.
^ "successful e-entrepreneurs". MyBusiness. 1 July 2006.

[1] "Drivers To Be Smarter With SpeedAlert Software". AusIndustry. 20 March 2006.

[2] "THE COOL COMPANY AWARDS". Australian Anthill. 1 August 2006.

[3] "Secrets of Australian ICT Innovation Competition". IT Secrets. 10 April 2006.

[4] "successful e-entrepreneurs". MyBusiness. 1 July 2006.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]