Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 15

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

The result was delete. DS 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrange

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I think this is a perfect example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Editor88 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no google references. Michael Greiner 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete author even admits it's obscure.--Nebular110 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• So wait, "shrange" = "http://www."? That's almost BJAODN-worthy as a WTF-moment. humblefool® 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. Rohirok 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A joke. <KF> 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is no hoax. I attend a west coast university and this term is common usage there. Tehkweeyan

  Note: This user has no other edits. Editor88 02:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spelled sideways

subject has article at other wikimedia site and zero data attached here Ben iarwain 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Can be nothing more than a dictionary defintion. Not verified. Rohirok 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary -- Deville (Talk) 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR more suited to urbandictionary.com than wiktionary. Google seems to indicate more than one approach to use of the phrase. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung reasoning. feydey 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR, unenclyclopedic. HighInBC 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Deville. Cynical 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki — to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Martinp23 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is so sad, but it looks like I'm going to have to say d3l3t3. Yours sideways, Cyde Weys 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unlinked to neologism. Why bother transwiki when nothing actually refers to it? StuffOfInterest 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete see above. will381796 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphology

A copyrighted term about a test you send for in the mail to learn about, and then they send you a certification. It's some pseudoscience that says you can tell a person's characteristics by their handwriting. Just see the page and their site. I don't think this is notable, and the article is certainly POV mboverload@ 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is impossible to copyright just one word. That organization is just one organization, and this article is not about that organization. If it's a pseudoscience, that's not a reason to delete it. Michael Hardy 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Well-known pseudoscience with a venerable history. The term is a perfectly good dictionary word: AHD says "NOUN: The study of handwriting, especially when employed as a means of analyzing character."[1] Heck, there could even be something in it, although I vaguely seem to recall studies showing that different graphologists' analysis of the same handwriting samples didn't yield consistent results. All articles of this kind need constant watching for the insertion of promotional material and links and for point-of-view pushing; this one could probably benefit from some careful attention, but it doesn't even look particularly bad. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Britannica thinks it's worthy of an article[2]; so does Encarta[3]. I said "venerable," didn't I? How about a 1919 book on "Graphology and the Psychology of Handwriting?" [4] Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment a Google Scholar search yields 1400 hits, quite a lot for a Scholar search. You can judge for yourself what's the balance of research fur it and research agin' it... but its definitely a serious topic of serious research. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the 1440 makes it notiable. I also don't believe the copywright argument is valid in this case. --Edgelord 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a real topic, even if it may be a pseudoscience -- Whpq 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wasn't using the fact that it was copyrighted to make a case to delete it. --mboverload@ 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If that is the case why then was it part of your opening sentence? --Edgelord 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Possibly because xe was thinking about trademarks, not copyright, and about Graphoanalysis, not Graphology. I wonder whether the nominator nominated the article that xe intended to nominate. Uncle G 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was asking the nominator why he stated the term being copyrighted in the first sentence if that was not being used as a reason to delete the article. I also believe that the correct artilce was nominated because bith the nominator and one of the people voting keep stated that it was about studying handwriting.
• Speedy keep. Graphology is one of the most notable forms of pseudoscience in the modern world. This is like nominating Scientology for deletion. Just make it less messy, source it, and keep it free of the spam and unscientific claims it will surely attract. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this is a real pseudoscience that has successfully slithered its way into American courtrooms a few times. The independent report on the Killian memos discusses its significance in the handwriting field. Gazpacho 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per others -- Deville (Talk) 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, the word is a notable pseudoscience term and the article just needs to be sourced and referenced. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep... Popular pseudosciences are notable unless you really want to delete Dianetics, Rolfing and Chiromancy too. wikipediatrix 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Apparently well referenced, and a well-known term. More references never hurt, though LinaMishima 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's pseudoscience. It's crap. The article needs to indicate that. But it's a real pseudoscience, better known than many, and worthy of entry. Travislangley 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starsomething

This webcomic was originally nominated and deleted last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starsomething and can be found on the comic genesis free web host, here. The reasons for this nomination are the same as the original, it is not a notable website, there are no respectable third party stories relating to this subject. The comic's authors have gone onto arguably more notable projects since this, but they don't have the midas touch. Just as we don't have an article on Moby's high school band, we shouldn't have an article on this random website. - Hahnchen 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. However, if the authors have gone onto really notable projects and have an article, merge and redirect there. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See above. --Planetary 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Above. Actually, This article was nominated for deletion in last year. Daniel's page ☎ 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, webcomic, deleted before. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with article about the authors. Cynical 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, or merge per cynical if the authors are clearly notable AdamBiswanger1 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — and merge per above Martinp23 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mention it on the RPG World and Adventurers! author's pages. I've read it - there's not much there. humblefool® 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They didn't go on to notable projects. They came from Adventurers! and RPG World, for pete's sake. These are both hugely popular webcomics. They are at the level, and have been around long enough, that they don't need to put themselves on rating lists or similar. Starsomething was visited by large chunks of both their fanbases.--Mobius Soul 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - My apologies for confusing them. They were a sideproject running alongside the arguably more notable comics, but my point still stands, they do not have the Midas touch. - Hahnchen 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources and WP:NOT an internet guide. As far as being associated with the "hugely popular" webcomics Adventurers! and RPG World goes, is there a reliable source that suggests these webcomics are "hugely popular"? They appear to have the hugely not very popular Alexa rankings of 291,620 [5] and 308,925 [6] respectively. -- Dragonfiend 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mobius Soul. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emerald Winter

Another webcomic, found here. Using a google search to look for "emerald winter", the best source I could come up with was a review on a podcast[7]. It's Alexa rank is 1.2 million for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable comicruft. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable webcomic. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Cruft death to webcomics. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Martinp23 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - low Alexa ranking is not a good enough reason to delete. Cynical 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The nominator's "the best source I could come up with" is a reference to the article having no reliable sources and the nominator being unable to find any. Our content policies require that articles be based on reliable, third-party sources. -- Dragonfiend 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are just so many webcomics out there, and I don't see how this one is notable in the least. While Alexa ranking isnt the be-all end-all, it certainly does not bode in the comic's favor. Do you have any reason for voting keep other than in defiance of the use of the Alexa ranking? AdamBiswanger1 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn with no sources. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable will381796 05:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halobabies

This is the second nomination for this article, it was previously deleted here, and I pretty much agree with the original nomination. A non notable webcomic which does not pass WP:WEB. Its Alexa rank is 580,000. - Hahnchen 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and block recreation as per nom. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, good comic, but it's only marginally notable and only within the Halo community. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per above. SynergeticMaggot 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — CSD G4 Martinp23 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G4 Cynical 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--G4 seems a little like censorship sometimes in that it calls for deletion without a thought as to what the article says. AdamBiswanger1 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nominator but not G4 unless it is actual recreation Yuckfoo 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• No Opinion But id like to point out that you've got 8-bit theater (also a webcomic) on here... Held in much esteem by Final Fantasy fans, much as Halobabies is held in esteem for Halo fans... yet this one is up for deletion and the other is not? Just making a point, ive no opinion on this matter. Kupofather 15:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block recreation. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Kotor

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic fan fiction webcomic found on the free web host Smack Jeeves, here. Although the free web host Smack Jeeves claims to host over 2000 websites on its article, the entire domain only manages a paltry Alexa rank of 120,000 of which this comic is the most popular. Even the most popular website on Smack Jeeves only manages to return 30 Google hits for "Totally Kotor". I think I'm going to have to nominate the host next. But that's for later, what's certain is that this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable website. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn webcomic. feydey 08:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Jonnymoblin 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Alexa rankings are nonsense, 30 Google links is fine. Cynical 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Remember WP:WEB, also. AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. The article fails our WP:WEB guidelines miserably. RFerreira 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Zibes

Although giving your webcomic a transgendered theme is a sure fire way to ensure its success, it fails here. Take a look at the webcomic here, it's 40 google links here and lack of Alexa rank here. - Hahnchen 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic about a mishmash of game universes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 40 Google links is fine, Alexa rankings are unreliable nonsense (they only take into account the activities of those with the Alexa Toolbar spyware installed). Cynical 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Only 40 Google hits is not fine. My Uncle Ned's fishing blog gets more than that. wikipediatrix 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom and not meeting any WP standards. Wickethewok 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete when it becomes notable, it should have an article - but it's not there yet. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per above will381796 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moved to Talk space and speedy delete the leftover redirect. Kimchi.sg 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/To do

I don't know what to do with this, maybe move it to Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Super King 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I assume it's pending cleanup items on the article, so I'd say Merge to Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. Fan-1967 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you guys undestand how this page came about. Every page in the Stargate project has this template (at the bottom of my post). Contained within this template, as you can see is a feature to create to-do-list subpages for the talk pages. It was a system the project desgined to create to do lists for articles. Either delete this feature or keep it, but don't delete this one page without adressing the issue. Also, this should be on MfD not AfD. Tobyk777 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Stargateproject}}

• Support Oppose - This was created in the wrong area - The todo should be off the talk page. Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/to do. I created this page and copied over the todo list. After Review - However, it looks like the template used by Stargate puts the talk page off the article and not off the talk. Since this is how they have set it up, I don't see it is any interest to make them change all the articles under this project. Such an effort would be huge. Morphh 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close This has been moved to the talk space now, so this AfD isn't required. The template looks like it's creating in the talk space to me, and that part of it hasn't been edited since this AfD started, so I'm a little confused as to how this page was created. It should have been a talk page from the start. --Tango 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close Messed up nomination per Tango. Tobyk777 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Someone db-author it if its merged already. SynergeticMaggot 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep so Project can fix it. - LA @ 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PESWiki

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

It is a vanity page, quite possibly unverifiable, and an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote). Looks like a non-notable forum for fringe technologies, and also like someone's trying to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Response from PESWiki Founder The page was posted by the suggestion of User:Meco who posted the invitation to create such a page on User_talk:sterlingda's talk page on 25 May 2006.

The argument that the site earns money from ads and therefore is unworthy of a link is not balanced inasmuch as most sites on the internet (and which are linked from Wikipedia) are supported at least in part by ads.

The argument of "unverifiable" is also irrelevant inasmuch as many of the technology feature pages most often include documentation of just what is or is not validated on a given technology. Indeed, the New Energy Congress, which is hosted at PESWiki.com was founded with the purpose of documenting technologies and rating them based on a set of criteria, one of the ten criteria being "credibility of evidence."

The site has been built over two years, through the collaborative effort of many people, and contains many well-developed articles akin to Wikipedia.

The argument that the site is merely a "non-notable forum", that is likewise groundless, inasmuch as the ratio of viewers to posters is highly disproportionate. Most of the traffic comes from viewers, and most of the changes are made by a few individuals who are careful about accuracy and credibility. Very little dialogue, or "forum" activity takes place on the site.

As for "fringe technologies," we prefer to use the terminology of "cutting-edge," and yes, that is our specialty -- to push the envelope. We spend most of our effort outside of the mainstream box. That is why the site was created, rather than just populating energy-related content at WikiPedia. Such content was not welcome here, so we created that site, and it has been a tremendous success. Many professionals from a wide berth of disciplines visit the site and refer to it often.

Of course we're trying to make a point. Isn't that the point of any written document? Maybe I'm missing some nuance of some Wikipedia jargon. Whatever.

Finally, let me say that one thing I do not miss at all about Wikipedia (rarely visiting here for the purpose of posting), which is nearly completely absent at PESWiki, is this sort of mindless quibbling about content that is obviously meritorious to most observers -- especially those who know what they are talking about on the subject. Mr. Pablo-flores is able to post a notice of putting the page up for deletion, and he has obviously spent just a minute or two looking at the site, while there are several individuals contributing to PESWiki many hours a day, day after day, week after week, and now two years total, making it a very significant work -- a point completely lost on Mr. Pablo-flores. I don't mean disrespect to him in staying that, I'm just criticizing the culture here at Wikipedia which is so knee-jerk busy-bodyish, that productivity of serious contributors is wasted on responding to such silly nonsense.

I'm so glad I have a place mostly absent of such mindlessness over at PESWiki, where we can post unfettered, for the most part, limited only by a quest for truth, and hardly ever having to be bogged down by politics of groundless and unnecessary interactions such as this.

I'm the "Jimbo Wales" of PESWiki, and am treated with respect there, and I try to treat others who contribute with the same respect. Yet here at Wikipedia, I'm treated like an imbecile. Do you think that that is inviting to good content contributions? Hardly. I spend every waking hour, nearly, focused on cutting-edge energy technology, surveying the field, reporting, writing, compiling, etc. Yet Mr. Pablo-flores treats my posting with about as much respect as if it had come from some punk just flinging some information on the site for a kick. Man I don't miss Wikipedia!

If the inventor of a technology comes to PESWiki and posts content, we rejoice. We don't call it "self-promotion." Sheesh, if Tesla were alive, and dared post something about himself at Wikipedia, you would ban the page because of "self-promotion." Who better to compose an article than the subject of the article? Come on folks. When are you going to get a clue? Sterlingda 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Different Wikis have different purposes. The purpose of this Wiki is to be an Encyclopaedia - so non-encyclopaedic content is excluded, just as words you personally made up at excluded at the Wikitionary. Perhaps you're looking for Wiki - uh - what does Wikisource do? WilyD 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Sorry. The most significant inboudn link seems to be a Digg ... and a Wikipedia article. [8] --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cutting edge and painful to read. --Musaabdulrashid 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, no references, no sources for claims like "an authoritative source" and the promotion of corporate sites. feydey 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - fails WP:WEB, not notable enough, not enough links in, article reads like an ad and needs serious wikification. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • • Strong KEEP!!! - SUCCEEDS WP:WEB, notable enough, enough links to validate technologies outlined, article reads like normal news ezines and needs to be maintained. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT A LOT OF THE POSTS REQUESTING DELETION ARE FROM THE SAME OR SIMILAR IP ADDRESSES...NICE TRY. --altenergy ^(talk) 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is what I meant by making a point:

Many of the topics are on subjects that Allan was not able to post at Wikipedia when he attempted to do so back in 2003. At the time, such content was considered too controversial, or not sufficiently established scientifically. Several of these topics now have significant Wikipedia entries as well. (emphasis mine)

The article has other problems, already outlined above, which cannot be solved by removing those sentences.

Yes, Mr. Allan, Wikipedia is picky and yes, some of us do quibble about content. Our content (I speak of us as part of the community, which you aren't and don't want to be, as per your own admission) is subject to policies. You're free to have other policies in your site.

I won't discuss the quality or scientific validation of the content, or the work put into it by its contributors. That's not the point of this AfD. The point is that the website is not notable (see above), and the article makes claims that are not verified outside of it. Wikipedia is not a source of information; ideally, it's a repository of already reviewed, verified information.

Of course many sites employ advertising. But your site has a "Top 10", for example, that is a directory of commercial websites selling controversial technologies (cold fusion for home theaters, energy extraction from the vacuum, etc.). The Wikipedia article doesn't add to our knowledge of these, it merely increases your visibility. You have to be visible (notable) before you have an article in Wikipedia.

Your response only reinforces the idea that you're trying to make a point. Wikipedia is not "on the quest for truth". There are other places for that. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. Non-notatable. Jefffire 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it references no reliable sources. WilyD 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep digg is a far more reliable measure of notability than Alexa. Cynical 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, site does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable?

In Response to those who say the article should be deleted because PESWiki is non-notable. . .

According to Google, which has a very strong algorithm for page ranking, PESWiki consistently pull up high, often coming in the top three for specific companies, inventors, and technologies for which PESWiki has a feature page; often coming up even higher than Wikipedia for certain topics. This indicates that according to Google, which bases its algorithm largely on incoming links and traffic, PESWiki is a highly significant site, on a par with or even surpassing Wikipedia when it comes to PESWiki's coverage of cutting-edge energy technologies. If that is not significant, then neither is Wikipedia significant.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:

(Commented out, irrelevant to discussion)

References:

• http://Google.com
• http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Google is not helpful in establishing notability of a website. People here are sometimes impressed by high Alexa Rankings, which Peswiki is rated at 59,969 - because that measures the traffic - i.e. how much the website is used, not just how good it is at scamming google. Mayhaps you should take a gander at WP:WEB to see what Wikipedia is really looking for. WilyD 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As documented at http://googlehigh.com, PESWiki's page rankings are not due to short-term tricks or gimmicks, but are due to quality and presentation of content. These high ratings are a consistent feature of PES Network sites, and do not come and go with the latest trick. An Alexa rating in the region of 59,000 is quite respectable for a niche-topic site as PESWiki is. Sterlingda 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • An Alexa ranking of 60 000 is not atrocious, but it's hardly a criterion for inclusion - it just means a site may be able to establish itself as encyclopaedic (which this has not). WilyD 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wookieepedia can have an entry and not PESWiki? WTF?!?! 134.193.168.251 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wookieepedia does have a reference with the Scifi article - that's not to say it'd pass AfD is nom'd. WilyD 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• PESWiki Has a few references also (in a few articles). And there has been a systematic push to keep the site out (defenders of "truth" not fact). Sad to see the Wikipediblog do this. AfD use to be alot better a few years ago (when it was VfD), but the bias is rampant now in Wikpediblog ... 134.193.168.251 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On this point you would be mistaken - the article does not cite any reliable sources. WilyD 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD is not a competition to see if PESWiki is better than Wikipedia or any other site. Please read the policies that have been pointed out to you and try to understand what this is about. And please move long replies to the talk page (AfD main pages are for votes and short comments only).

    You might like to read up on Google bombing to understand what's happening with your Google ratings.

    I've removed your comments about the list of wikis, not pertaining to this process. Tu quoque?

    BTW, you can nominate the Wookieepedia article for deletion if you feel it doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. If you simply dislike Wikipedia, either challenge its policies in the proper places or leave. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Google bombing is what wikipedia does. That is why in the Manual of style that Wikipedia recommends that 'all links in an article are internal wikilinks. Inaddition Many Wikipedian don't follow the WP policies or twist them to support thier point.

      BTW, Wookieepedia meets these condition that this article is criticized for ... but thye voters here twist the rules how they like .... 134.193.168.251 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Wookieepedia does have a single reliable-ish source in it - however, articles that haven't been considered for deletion really offer no precendence at all - there's no real reason to believe Wookieepedia would survive AfD - things do get through the cracks. WilyD 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • PD - Sorry, I didn't pay attention and skipped over the link to googlehigh. You actually wrote a book on how to trick Google to get high ranks, and you're advertising it here! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not "advertising" it, I'm referencing it as a documentation of the fact that honesty is the best policy when it comes to ranking well in Google. You have missed the point of the "book". There are no "tricks" it has completely to do with good content and placement that makes sense and flows well for readers. Sterlingda 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also note a similar debacle going on at List of energy topics. wikipediatrix 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as spam and not meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete? No, Nuke it. It fails WP:WEB, WP:RS (were are the independent third party sources?), WP:SPAM (reads like an advert), WP:NOT(take your pick of violations there...soapbox, hosting, etc), WP:POINT (Per the rant above), WP:AUTO/WP:VANITY(Per the rant above) ...and the holy trinity: WP:NPOV (article is far from a neutral pov), WP:OR (No independent sources?), and WP:V (Can't verify any of this information). I haven't seen this many violations on just one article in a long time. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, violations of WP:NPOV aren't grounds for deletion of articles - but your other criteria are likely enough to support a deletion action anyhow. WilyD 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, you are correct. I was just using it because I used the other two and there is that statement that the three rules should not be applied seperately, or it could be that I only am running on two hours of unrestful sleep. Forgive my ramblings --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry to step on your toes just for going a little overboard with good pedagogical intent. WilyD 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No worries WilyD. You are one user that I actually concider a friendly face...typeset...whatever :P --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)}
• Delete — Fails WP:WEB Martinp23 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB and others. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete'? abassign (ITALY),No! It goes maintained link, is a much optimal reference for the study of energies alternatives. Is thery userful. It is much profit for the job of scouting on energetic technologies alternatives.
• I find PESWiki quite useful. I go to it almost every day. There is much useful information here. Hoss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.184.45 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 August 2006.
  • The front door of my house is very useful. I use it several times per day. It does not warrant an encyclopaedia article. The criteria for inclusion here are not whether individual editors find the subjects of articles useful. The various Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines have been linked to above. Please provide an argument that is based upon them. Uncle G 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:OR, WP:Verfiability. Even this AfD discussion has been rendered into Spam. Rohirok 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Or purge links to it from Wikipedia articles [9] A third option is to combine it with an article covering it, Sterling Allen's other site http://freeenergynews.com, http://zpenergy.com and http://www.keelynet.com/ Hackwrench 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • External links are a different matter. I wouldn't link to PESWiki.com from each and every article, but the site certainly is useful as an annotated directory of fringe cutting-edge technology, for those who want to get at that. External websites linked from Wikipedia need not be notable, verifiable or POV-neutral. I'd reserve it for certain specific articles, though, not for every energy tech article in WP. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration--Tess Tickle 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Such as? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • • OK, you didn't have to repeat the whole rant. We must assume that everybody who participates in this discussion is paying attention to what has been said. If you have reasons to want the article kept, state them. You'll need to address the reasons of those who want the article deleted, which are based on a wide range of policies. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can someone tell me the better, more authoritative, less commercial website source for information on research into cutting edge energy technology? If we are to assume that PESWiki is some form of self promoting self referential site, then there must be another that meets Wikipedia's criterion? I find PESWiki to be the definitive, balanced, authoritative wiki on this subject. Shame if Wikipedia deletes it, and this will cast serious doubts upon the vaunted Wikipedian policies! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnww2 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Johnww2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Please read my User:johnww2 page before discounting my contribution to the discussion. Thanks.

• Delete per above will381796 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As Sterlingda has informed I urged him back in May to create a page about his wiki site, and I'm pleased to see he has followed up on my encouragement. As for the issue of whether or not the article meets WP:WEB I find this particular Wikipedia guideline very oblique and prone to POV interpretations. In my view the subject of this article, the PESWiki, is notable enough. __meco 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point-for-Point Rebuttal to Pablo's call for deletion

Pablo asks in what way I have responded to his contentions.

Let me be specific, point for point:

Pablo says 

"It is a vanity page"

Sterling replies 

It is a review of PESWiki.com, which is a news, directory, and open source project service for cutting-edge energy technologies, unparalleled anywhere on the internet, said to be the best by many leaders in the field. [10]

Pablo says 

"quite possibly unverifiable"

Sterling replies 

Note the number of references to the site in a Google search for peswiki, some of which references have been appended to the article. Google tallies 48,900 references.

Pablo says 

"an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote)."

Sterling replies 

A site having revenue income outside of just donations does not constitute grounds for it not being addressed or linked from Wikipedia. Not everyone has to beg, though PES Network would not have survived without generous contributions in the beginning. It is now self-funded. That should be an argument for vitality, not the other way around.

Pablo said 

"non-notable"

Sterling replies 

I have documented here (which someone removed) that many of PESWiki's energy listings come up higher in Google searches for key terms than Wikipedia for those same terms, often coming within the top five, and even in the first position in some cases, such as "Open Source Energy". We are ahead of CNN, CNET, and even the U.S. Government and all other institutions on the planet for many search terms. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. And it isn't because we trick the search engines. The http://googlehigh.com site I posted documents the opposite -- our high ranking comes from a principle of "honesty really is the best policy.

Pablo says 

"forum"

Sterling replies 

The volume of back-and-forth commentary taking place on the site is maybe around 2 - 5% (a guess). It is very low. Most pages are objective presentations of their subject matter, and include links to skeptical input. That is as it should be.

Pablo says 

"fringe technologies"

Sterling says 

Today's truth was yesterday's blasphemy. Indeed, we push the envelope. That is our mission -- something Wikipedia is unwilling to do, hence the void that needed to be filled. Someone needs to be willing to think outside the box and explore new possibilities, or no advancement will be made. Wikipedia specializes in well-established science. PESWiki specializes in cutting-edge science, often bleeding-edge. Few are courageous enough to risk their reputations in such uncharted territory, but for those who are, we provide a venue for their exploration.

Pablo said 

"trying to make a point"

Sterling replies 

According to WP:POINT, this apparently has to do with a Wikipedia user posting something not for its merits, but to create controversy in order to illustrate an argument through an extreme example. I assure you that I had no such agenda in posting the page. As stated in the memo at the time I posted the page, I was posting the page based on another user suggesting a couple of months earlier that I do so. The page was posted with all sincerity, and is an accurate, if not inadequate synopsis of a very in-depth and substantial site, whose contents has been created through the collaborative efforts of many.

In summary, I have replied to each of Pablo's criticism, showing them to be overwhelmingly groundless. I must say that when he first posted the "delete" suggestion on the page, I was tempted to post a "delete" suggestion on his user page. I didn't know how to do so, or I would have. Perhaps someone else, who is more Wikipedia conversant can do so. Let the Wikipedia community decide if Pablo should continue as a contributor in good standing. I would certainly vote "delete." With people like him making such ridiculous suggestions with absolutely no substantial merit, only personal bias and knee-jerk observations, the caliber and meaningful future of Wikipedia is jeopardized.

As a sampling of PESWiki merit, please review our most recent page: Review:The Corporation. See also the listing of the most recent major page postings at PESWiki to get a feel for the frequency and caliber of new PESWiki content, which has been mostly consistent from the beginning, two years ago, when the site commenced.

Sterlingda 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches

This was posted above with an earlier comment I made, but someone deleted it as irrelevant. I deem it highly relevant for documenting how significant a site PESWiki is. I spent a morning preparing this information for this defense. I don't appreciate other users removing it.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:
(as of Aug. 15, 2006)
(search terms are not in quotations to limit them to that word sequence or juxtaposition)

• open source energy (137,000,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/OS is #7
  • other PES Network sites rank #1, 2, 5, 6
  • site ranking #3,4 is a former PES Network associate
  • cnn is #10
  • cnet is #11
  • Wikipedia #23

• new energy congress (112,000,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/Free_Energy_Congress is #1,2
  • other PES Network sites rank #3 and #10
  • http://energy.senate.gov is #4
  • businessweek is #5
  • www.house.gov is #8
  • cnn.com is #27
  • cnet is #30
  • whitehouse.gov is #38
  • wikipedia is #52

• Tesla Motors (2,300,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #10
  • motortrend.com is #4
  • wired.com is #6
  • CNET is #21
  • Wikipedia is #28

• Tesla Motors Inc (399,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
  • Wikipedia entry is #8.

• home generation (668,000,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Home_Generation is #1
  • cnn.com is #10
  • Wikipedia does not rank in top 10

• hydrogen from water (44,100,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water is #3
  • purdue.edu is #8
  • physchem.co.za is #9
  • sciam.com is #10
  • sciencedaily.com is #12
  • physorg.com is #14
  • nature.com is #16
  • bbc.co.uk is #23
  • nrel.gov is #31
  • CNET is #34
  • greencarcongress.com is #49
  • wired.com is #51
  • doe.gov is #54
  • wikipedia is not in top 100

• stirling energy systems (2,260,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Stirling_Energy_Systems is #4 after three corporate links
  • sandia.gov is #5 (where the company has been hosted, and where President Bush announced his energy policy)
  • wired.com is #7
  • answers.com #9
  • Wikipedia is #18

• hydrogen technology applications (23,700,000 entries at Google) and hydrogen technology applications inc (6,030,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
  • wikipedia comes up #10 and #8, respectively
  • eere.energy.gov is #9 for Hydrogen Technology Applications

• bioperformance (101,000 entries at Google)
  • http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BioPerformance_Fuel is #1, before corporate site (had 40,000+ MLM dealers)
  • oag.state.tx.us is #6 (Attorney General's office that temporarily shut down Bioperformance)
  • Wikipedia is #22

References:

• http://Google.com
• http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pablo spent 12 mins max before posting AfD

I gave the following response to Pablo who posted a message to my talk page requesting that I remove my comments about him, as well as the Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches section.

Hi Pablo. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "PESWiki is better than Wikipedia". I pointed out that PESWiki excels for some search terms. I didn't say so explicitly, but those search terms are not inconsequential. The point was to document that your assertion that PESWiki is "not notable" is not true.

Your arguments for deletion were shown by me to be groundless in each particular. Why don't you acknowledge as much? Likewise, I could show that each of the other arguments are without merit. I honed in on you because you were the one who commenced to AfD, and you had the gall to respond to one of the supporters for non-deletion by asking how I had rebuffed your arguments, so I elaborated, point by point. I wouldn't repeat myself if you would make such ridiculous statements as "Such as?" in response to the user comment "PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration".

I stand by my assertion that Wikipedia would be better served without knee-jerk reactionaries such as yourself who make accusations that are groundless. Let me ask you. How much time did you take looking at PESWiki.com before posting the AfD? The answer to that question is found in the history of the page. Twelve minutes max. That is absolutely asinine that you would be able to render any kind good judgment in such a short period of time. Yet you carry yourself in your wording as if you are some big hot shot at Wikipedia. You should lose your privileges at Wikipedia, which is not well-served by the likes of you being free to throw your weight around.

[edit] Meets WP:WEB

Several critics above said that the PESWiki article fails for reasons of WP:WEB. The updated External articles and references section documents some relevant mainstream press citations, satisfying the first condition: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

'Ramifications for Wikipidia

Should laziness on the part of those voting for deletion -- because they do not roll up their sleeves to see if significant citations exist -- constitute grounds for deletion of a page? Except for one reference, I populated this list of links by doing a simple Google search on PESWiki and "New Energy Congress". The list is not comprehensive.

I thought one of the functioning principles of Wikipedia was that one person doesn't have to do all the work, but posts what he/she can, and others clean it up, expand it, post documentation, etc. That was not the case here. Rather, a few users responded in a knee-jerk manner, without doing any research, and assumed a certain thing (the article topic, PESWiki.com, is "not notable" based on WP:WEB), and rendered a decision based on that assumption. That assumption was wrong, they were wrong to vote for deletion. Their conclusion was groundless.

Do they continue in good standing at Wikipedia, and continue propagating such sloppy work? The first response to a new page should not be skepticism and persecution, but should be honest inquiry into the possibilities of legitimacy. I received no such queries in my talk page. Twelve minutes after PESWiki was posted, it was labeled AfD.

Sterlingda 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s.

When User:Pablo-flores first came to the PESWiki page, and wondered about notability, rather than assume that non existed, without doing a check (which we can safely assume is what he did given the mere 12 minutes that transpired from the time the page was posted to the time he posted AfD), he should have either 1) done nothing; or 2) he should have done a web search to discover some significant links, and add them to the page for the benefit of subsequent users. Only after doing such a search, and coming up empty-handed, would he then be justified in posting a AfD based in part on the "non-notable" criteria. In this case, he would have found significant references.

Speaking of making a point, it seems that he was trying to be a hero for Wikipedia, keeping unworthy content out, at the expense of actually determining whether or not the content had merit. Again, I say an AfD should be posted on his user page, and he, and others like him, should not be allowed to continue in good standing at Wikipedia.

Sterlingda 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any Other Objections?

I think I have addressed all of the major concerns mentioned above. If there is still a concern that is not addressed, which constitutes grounds for page deletion, please bring it to my attention so I can either address it, or agree that the page does not belong at Wikipedia per that reason. Sterlingda 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete (and I miss you, Grampa). DS 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active Nonagenarians

Non-notable neologism, few Google hits and all from one book, Alive and Well:The Emergence of the Active Nonagenarian. Warofdreams talk 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. (Also, I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being said there. Help, anyone?) --Planetary 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sloppily-spelled article about a non-notable neologism with a garnish of pseudoscience. Opabinia regalis 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The mailman stole my socks! --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Opabina -- Deville (Talk) 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Delete as above Betacommand 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per NEO and stolen socks. A tragedy. SynergeticMaggot 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable term. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. 1ne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Neologism Martinp23 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Cynical 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable neologism, dicdef, the only source is the book which came up with the term. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete patent nonsense no need to waste time and energy on the full process. ~~ N (t/c) 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rylt

An article about a nonexistent thing. Delete Green caterpillar 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• We have plenty of articles about nonexistent things, from Roman Empire through perpetual motion machine to Babylon 5. What, per our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is your reason for wanting this article on a non-existent thing deleted? Uncle G 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, no sources, unverified, and no disstinction between fact and fiction. It would be like saying "Zeus is..." or "Zeus soemtimes..." or something to that effect. --Planetary 01:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete total nonsense. No two words in this article seem to have any shared google hits. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. He's only been on this planet once? Kooblog the Noorian has has been here more times than that and there's no article for him or any of his seven manifestations. --Xrblsnggt 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cobden Club

Not convinced of notability, and the current article is a whole can of unusually wordy adspam. Opabinia regalis 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, passes the Google test as a current notable London venue. Should be rewritten per List of London's gentlemen's clubs (where it is not listed). --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Copyvio removed, stubified. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a rewrite, even if there's not much to rewrite. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Passes google test, but needs a rewrite, Martinp23 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. Note: now listed in List of London's gentlemen's clubs. --Daniel Olsen 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The place may be more notable than we think. <KF> 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sofía Álvarez Vignoli de Demichelli

She seems non-notable. There are only two mentions of her in the one external link on the article, and I can't really find anything else about her. —Mets501 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article has been significantly expanded, now she seems notable enough. I change my vote to Keep. —Mets501 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Expand Seems like a genuine article to me. But unverifiable because of her low profile and the status of Uruguay in those years. --Ageo020 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no doubt that it's genuine. I just don't think she's notable, and being unverifiable doesn't help. —Mets501 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand, I'll go with the expand but I could be convinced otherwise. The linked article mentions that she represented Uruguay in the Interamerican Women's Conference. My guess would be that her status in the women's movement is comparable to some of the lesser-known American sufferage activists, of whom I am sure we have articles aplenty. -- Deville (Talk) 03:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Associations with notable people don't confer notability. wikipediatrix 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — To Alberto Demichelli - all of the info in this article is already in that one. Failing this, it should be expanded hugely. Martinp23 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep We're seriously considering keeping the cat of a daughter of an ex-president Misty Malarky Ying Yang while proposing deleting the diplomat wife of another? I'll expand it a bit. Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - it's in better shape now. I might do a little more, but I think there are plenty valid claims to notability. Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - good save, folks. humblefool® 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nonimator now wants to keep article. --Edgelord 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Rock

Delete Band that fails notability test, and WP:BAND —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KnightLago (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 02:11:48 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Band does not fail notability test, band meets the following criteria: Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...):
  • See August 2006 Relix Magazine Page 86;
  • See Jambase (published 7/27/06) Jambase Review;
  • See The Phoenix (published 7/27/06) Future Rock show preview;
  • See Glide Magazine (published 7/10/06) Glide Magazine Review;
• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinkornkhan (talk • contribs) .
• Delete — The notability of the subject needs to be asserted in the article. If such an assertation is made in the article itself, then my vote would be keep. Martinp23 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clear evidence of notability. If the information is available, but not in the article, then the logical response is to add the information, not delete the article! Cynical 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The text of this article is taken from here, here, here, and the band's site (futurerock.net). If someone can manage to find some other words to describe them, keep. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cynical and BaseballBaby. --HResearcher 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cynical and rewrite. --Daniel Olsen 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete; not even funny. DS 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Whitehorn

Hoax. Search for "James Whitehorn" Bolivia in Google registers nothing outside of Wikipedia, which would certainly not be the case for a capped Bolivian national team player. fuzzy510 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if this is a hoax. Try google search "James Whitehorn"+.football[11]. If anything James Whitehorn isn't notable enough. --HResearcher 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, definite hoax -- Deville (Talk) 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, joke etc., googling the name with Footballer gives also nothing to confirm. Good catch fuzzy510. feydey 09:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax/joke. Mr Stephen 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — hoax Martinp23 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as hoax Cynical 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --HResearcher 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr crowe's educational services

NN spam. ~~ N (t/c) 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spam Advertisement --Ageo020 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam -- Deville (Talk) 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Fried spam and eggs. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very transparent. C56C 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per all above Martinp23 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Cynical 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete spam. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Spam, unfortunately, is not a criterion for CSD. ~~ N (t/c) 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge, the tag is already on the article so there's nothing to do (afd is not a place to vote upon new tasks for admins). - Bobet 09:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin "Ben" Holladay

The nominator did not follow through to AfD 2 and 3, so I am copy and pasting his edit summary: RobJ1981 (Talk | contribs) m (Added AFD: there is already a Ben Holladay page, there doesn't need to be two.) No opinion from me. Srose (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Some of his early and personal life should be merged into the Ben Holladay article. --Ageo020 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful;delete as redundant if there's nothing to merge. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all others -- Deville (Talk) 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I think that somebody could merge this into Benjamin Holladay. Just like full name. Daniel's page ☎ 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — To the common english usage of the name per naming conventions. SynergeticMaggot 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — Per all above Martinp23 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the above. Cynical 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• merge' per above makes most sense really Yuckfoo 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the useful and relevant material. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Benjamin Holladay. Its all been said before. RFerreira 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiant CMS

This article concerning a software program is unsourced, reads like an advertisement, and contains no assertion of notability. The software itself was released less than two months ago, and I could not find any info on the subject from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:VERIFY, WP:ADS, and WP:SOFTWARE. --Satori Son 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE as of now. Get back to us when it's a viable Drupal or PHP-Nuke competitor. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep subjects of Wikipedia are assessed on their own merits, not in relation to other more well-known subjects. Cynical 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and as per Dhartung. wikipediatrix 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per wikipediatrix - also it's version 0.5.2, so surely not ready to be on WP yet. Martinp23 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Martinp23. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Sure, this is exciting (as in "wow, an actually working Ruby on Rails-based generic CMS!") and seems to net quite a few google hits (89,900 for "radiant cms"), especially on blogs. Yet, I have a tiny bit of worry that this might not be that widely used or widely discussed yet, and as the nom says, this is a rather new application. Since this is such a short stub right now, I don't see the harm of deleting this now and recreating it when (I'm saying "when" instead of "when or if", because all built-with-even-half-brain Rails-based things seem to get ridiculous amounts of hype =) the thing gets more mature and there's absolutely no question about it's notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've tried it and it's a very solid CMS, and extremely extensible. However, the article is very short because I've asked the author's permission to use some content from the project's webpage on the article and haven't heard from him yet. And:
  • It's not a Drupal competitor. It's supposed to be (and it is) a simpler CMS. The use of the Rails framework allows it to be easily extended to your own needs.
  • I don't think version-number can ever possibily be an issue regarding deletion. Reason/example? Look at enlightenment.
  • 119.000 google hits, not 89.900. :P
  • I don't know how the notability policy has been used regarding blogs, but as mentioned before, it's beeing talked about quite a lot. Anyway, I doubt that small OSS aplications will ever match the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE (at least in the way I'm interpreting it).

  Jvale 10:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Zucker

• Delete article is about an minor actress who is nn, appears to be authored by the actress, fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO KnightLago 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, possible vanity. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious vanity by looking at the history of the article. Also being an extra in a sitcom is non notable. --Ageo020 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Daniel's page ☎ 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable actress, vanity article. JIP | Talk 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Vanity Martinp23 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep She has appeared on nine episodes of Scrubs per IMDB; if she plays a recurring regular character rather than a background extra, that would make her notable IMO. Can someone who actually watches the show comment on this? NawlinWiki 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I've cleaned up the article and removed most of the vanity stuff. NawlinWiki 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Cynical 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One job doesn't make an actor notable. She's not listed in the Season 5 episode guide at either nbc.com or scrubs-tv.com. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nine episodes as nothing equals nothing. The role of Lisa isn't listed anywhere on Scrubs, and not mentioned in any page of the program's Edispode guide, and a search for "Jordan Zucker" at nbc.com returns 0hits. Ohconfucius 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable actress. 1ne 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifably notable actress. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 —Mets501 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronical Warfare

Prod tag was removed. Fails WP:BAND. IceCreamAntisocial 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — I couldnt even find anything for ghits. Fails WP:BAND. SynergeticMaggot 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per above Martinp23 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, so tagged, notability not asserted, "Currently working on their debut EP". NawlinWiki 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Morgan (porn star)

No notability asserted and only 1 movie shown here. Delete. TerriersFan 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, actually looks like a hoax, but even if everything in the article is accurate this is nowhere near the bar set in WP:PORN BIO -- Deville (Talk) 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Martinp23 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. IMDB entry doesn't look relevant to porn. This is probably an attack page or joke against an acquaintance, labeling him a gay porn star. Fan-1967 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Konman72 09:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per above will381796 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley Stogner

• Delete non-notable amateur wrestler, also fails WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN, speedy delete was removed without comment by author KnightLago 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dave Meltzer's Five Star Matches

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Wrestlingcruft. Does not establish notability of subject. Article even notes that it's subjective. wikipediatrix 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think that the subjective you refer to applies to the article itself, which is wholly objective. -- Koffieyahoo 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. -- Koffieyahoo 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete RobJ1981 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Koffie, who does, it should be said, properly observe that the article objectively and verifiably presents the subjective views of an individual but that such views are unencyclopedic. Joe 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That was precisely my own point - that the article is a list of Meltzer's opinions, rather than facts. wikipediatrix 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete — listcruft Martinp23 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• What's the problem with this article. For me it's useful and interesting and also helps people to decide which matches worth watching!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.72.69.108 (talk • contribs).
• Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is cruft of the highest order -- Deville (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• DONT DELETE. This is a useful article and it just shows the opinion of one man no subjection—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.108.24 (talk • contribs).
• DONT DELETE! This page is very helpful for me and a lot of other people I know—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.171.79.92 (talk • contribs).
• Delete It's nothing more than the opinion of a very biased person.TJ Spyke 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - ironically the same can be said about your opinion in this discussion TJ Spyke. I'm also confused as to how such an article wasn't listed at WP:PW as this is a pretty notable article in wrestling and the opinions are broad on the topic of Dave Meltzer. --- Lid 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEp- I added a note to the article explaining that the list is picked solely by him and may be subject to biased. Its still a intresting article for many wrestling fans. I believe it makes a good reference point for fans. Warmon 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - This is a VERY good reference site that many people use when looking for great matches. Maybe it should be Merged with the WO main page, but it should not be deleted under any circumstances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs).
  • Meltzer has a bias against WWE(and WCW before it went out of business) and this is nothing more than his opinions. Besides, this would be worse than having a page of movies that got 2 thumbs up from Siskel & Ebert/Ebert & Roper. TJ Spyke 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Dave Meltzer's or the WO main article. Not really worth a full page, but reference-worthy. Drjayphd 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since both Dave Meltzer and the Wretling Observer Newsletter are considered to be one of the most respected true news sources in pro wrestling I can't see how this is not notable. I would prefer my vote to be Merge but since the choice right now seems to be between Delete and Keep I have to vote for keep. If the choice comes down to Keep or Merge then you can shift my vote to the latter. Sorry I forgot to sign my name Stephen Day 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft and just nn. Burgwerworldz 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Roger Ebert is just as respected in the movie industry but you don't see a page devoted to movies he's given high ratings(or thumbs-up ratings) to, do you? No, it's because of the same reason why this page shouldn't exist. TJ Spyke 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If somebody created such a page my reaction would be the same, it does have its place, but its as a part of the Dave Meltzer (or Roger Ebert in case of the example) page. If its a choice between Delete and Keep however, I'd say Keep in both cases. Stephen Day 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one more point I thought should be added for clarifacation. Its not really accurate to compare this list to a list of movies Roger Ebert has given thumbs up to. Meltzer so rarely gives five stars to matches that In a great many circles this list is considered to be an equilivent to a list of the greatest pro wrestling matches ever. Keeping that in mind only increases my thought that this information has its place here. Stephen Day 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be OK with merging it into the Dave Meltzer article. I prefer to Delete it, but a Merge would be acceptable to me. TJ Spyke 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Either way, don't delete. Meltzer isn't just a respected critic, he is THE respected critic of wrestling. His accolades mean quite a lot to the industry and its fans. BM2 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• It sounds like TJSpyke is very biased against someone he finds so biased. Get over. Any kind of list like this will be subjective, but this is probably one of the most respected lists of the best matches in wrestling history from 1980 to now that covers ALL wrestling, not just mainstream. Pages like this expose people to other promotions, other wrestlers, and matches they'd never watch otherwise. TJ Spyke is just upset because Dave Meltzer didn't go hog wild for Shelton Benjamin and Shawn Michaels. Well, Meltzer doesn't get upset when you don't go hog wild for the matches he lists as *****. Seriously, TJ Spyke just hates Meltzer and his opinion in this subject matter is not valid because of it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs).
  • My personal opinion of Meltzer has nothing to do with this, I would vote for Delete/Merge even if I agreed with him. TJ Spyke 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You've been moaning about this thing just because it's not in line with your opinion on what's a 5 Star Match. Look at it like this. Wikipedia should have a list of the greatest wrestling matches. THIS IS THE CLOSEST TO THAT AND IT IS THE MOST RESPECTED.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs).
    • Learn to sign your posts, and maybe register. Why does Wikipedia need a list of what matches 1 person thinks are great? This is just his opinion. TJ Spyke 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ...because this one person is the most respected critic in the industry. No other man really comes close in terms of influence. When people talk about a match being a 5-Star match, they are usually referring to a match that Meltzer has awarded 5 stars. BM2 00:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While i respect Meltzer, i do not think this deserves it's own page and is just listcruft. 67.137.12.144 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandcastle_Publishing

non-notable small business Carax 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Small publishing house; their current big product appears to be books on acting for children by a fellow who coaches child actors. Not sufficiently notable. --Brianyoumans 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Martinp23 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable yet. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of film roles based on ethnic stereotypes

Listcruft. Vague and indiscriminate collection of stereotypes, with no actual connection to film offered. wikipediatrix 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, original research without the research, as far as I can tell. Gazpacho 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unusable listcruft, original research, unreferenced. JIP | Talk 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article does not cite reliable sources. I'll change my opinion if some are added. WilyD 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic, no citations. HighInBC 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — yet more listcruft Martinp23 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR Cynical 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mish-mash of archetypes, no criteria, context or explanation.--Nydas 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a few weeks ago I merged this article with list of stock film roles based on ethnic stereotypes. What I should have done was put both articles up for AfD. This list is an unmanageable, unverifiable pile of useless OR. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete offensive OR. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons listed above.--Derco 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Essentially POV. Konman72 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP is not censored. If people are concerned about unverified entries, why not place a {fact} tag next to them instead of nominating it for deletion? The information in the article is, I believe, mostly genuine, it simply needs to be verified. --Tess Tickle 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Who said that WP should be censored? "it simply needs to be verified." True, I guess, but the verify tag has been there for a while and no one seems interested in adding sources. AND I brought this issue up on the discussion page, and no one seems interested in adding sources. Adding individual fact tags to every entry would be redundant. And besides, who gets to define what the criteria is for being a stock film role? There's no way this can be defined, really. This list is a breeding ground for original research, and it always will be.--Derco 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Ya see, the problem is, that not everyone is one wikipeadia eery spare minute of every day. Some people don't sign in for months at a time. If left alone, the article would, I believe, contain sufficient refererences for it to warrant inclusion in time. --Tess Tickle 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Could be a good drinking game to play, to think up any role which could be construed as a racial stereotype, but wiki is not WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per most of the above. KleenupKrew 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep just passed AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect). —Mets501 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Jones (architect)

Subject is not notable. Completed works were carried out by the company in which the subject is a partner, or in collaboration with other practices. As cited in the deletion discussion for Alastair Hall, this does not itslef confer notability. In addition, some information listed on the pages, particularly relating to published sources, is unverifiable. Mugabe 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Completed Mugabe's nomination. Last nomination was closed on August 4. Gazpacho 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep subject notable, and already passed an AfD a few weeks ago. C56C 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete notability was established according to non-verifiable criteria (inclusion in Wallpaper* magazine not verifiable online); and by reference to awards won, which were not won by the individual but by the practice. To quote from the discussion on the Alastair Hall deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alastair_Hall) (as cited by Mugabe) "And as has been demonstrated with the Cue Ball group or other business organizations deleted on grounds of a shaky claim to notability, notability within a notable organization is not a claim to notability". Adam bones 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V does not require sources to be available online, only to be available to some other editors. Gazpacho 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Subject notable, see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect)

Martinp23 11:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, passed AFD a week and a half ago. BoojiBoy 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:DEL:'A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion' Cynical 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Cynical. Even if the first AfD result was questionable, it is still too soon for a second nomination. --Satori Son 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's too soon to put back on AFD. This should have been to deletion review before it went back here. --Edgelord 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cynical. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of iron laws

notability not established: what is an "iron law", and why doesn't it have its own article? This list is almost entirely redlinked anyway, and the existing ones are very sketchy themselves. wikipediatrix 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the blue links justify its existence. Gazpacho 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Without establishing what an "iron law" is supposed to be, one could just as easily make a list of blue-linked articles with the word "the" in them. wikipediatrix 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is a list of things that have nothing to do with each other except that they have "iron law" in there name. Hence, an indiscriminate collection of information. Hence, delete. -- Koffieyahoo 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate collection of unrelated topics. Even a category would probably be too much. Sandstein 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Indiscriminate collection Martinp23 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - indiscriminate list -- Whpq 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as iron listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, one could imagine a dab page at Iron Law -- Deville (Talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most entries are redlinks anyhow. KleenupKrew 04:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned list

There is no actual "banned list" such as the one postulated in this article, it's entirely an Original Research construct based on a POV assumption. wikipediatrix 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No references, and an article name/term that is unclear as to what it refers to. LinaMishima 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per WP:NEO, WP:OR and basic cruft. External links in the article have nothing to do with the topic either. SynergeticMaggot 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with comedian without menitioning "banned list" as a concept. It is well-know that comedians avoid certain topics. However, there is no named concept as such. -- Koffieyahoo 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, contrary to the text, many comedians have made a point of doing 9-11 jokes of deliberately poor taste (most notably Gilbert Gottfried), and Holocaust jokes are also not uncommon (Even Jon Stewart did one when he hosted the Oscars) . wikipediatrix 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR, the author says on the talk page that it's "insider information". Sandstein 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, fails WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this unsupported tripe. Travislangley 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think of a single issue where every single comedian on earth has avoided. It's original research. ColourBurst 06:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails WP:OR, if verifiable sources can be found, then merge into Comedian Martinp23 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V and the author asserts that it fails WP:OR WilyD 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ColourBurst. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mostly POV. Green caterpillar 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR -- Deville (Talk) 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified, and likely unverifiable, original research.-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known term among comedians--Tess Tickle 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Come back when you have some reliable sources. RFerreira 21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who played Marines in movies

What's next? List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies? Julia Roberts! Sure, Marine is a respectable profession but so is police officer. That list is a joke too. ...And Beyond! 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." wikipediatrix 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep relates information that a catagory cannot, and interestingly informative. Entries appear to check out, so my references rule is met. I can't see any other way to compile this information, hence keep. LinaMishima 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be compiled in the first place? "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." wikipediatrix 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The best way to compile this information is by category. The other aspect of this "article" contrary to WP:NOT is that it's an indescriminate collection of information and trivia. It also does not support any existing article, nor does there need to be an article on actors who played marines in movies. If this is deleted, the redirect List of actors who played Marines at movies should be deleted as well. Agent 86 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment you said The best way to compile this information is by category, however this is a prime example of a list that cannot currently be duplicated as a catagory - as all the actors have references to their film appearances as marines next to them. Also, WP:NOT 'indescriminate collection' does not state anything about collecting information relating people into a format for easier exploration. LinaMishima 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete perfect example of indiscriminate collection of information. Don't bother categorizing either. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment this would not be OR if a catagory was possible, as the appearances are all referenced, as far as I can tell. LinaMishima 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • comment I don't see how this is referenced. No independent sources are cited. -- Koffieyahoo 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information, categorisation would be OK. Sandstein 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what is next, a list of actors who have played waitresses? Street-sweepers? Congressmen? You could generate these sorts of things forever, and each one would be interesting for about 5 people. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 06:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and probably the same five people for them all Martinp23 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete useless. C56C 08:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly listcruft. feydey 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. What's next, "List of non-actors who played cows in films under 30 mins in length"? (|-- UlTiMuS 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reason to have a list for everything. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — There's too many pointless lists on wikipedia already - we don't need any more! Martinp23 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless listcruft. Cynical 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and figure out a way to allow every user to generate such entertaining, but definitely nonencyclopedic and useless, lists on demand. --DrTorstenHenning 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not verified, originial research that could be considered an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually I'd be looking forward to the List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies. <KF> 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The list would probably be too long and include too many non-notable roles. The List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies on the other hand would probably be worthwhile. --Richard 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slave Hack

Just another non-notable online game played in your browser. This particular one was started in June of this year. It's biggest claim to fame is that it was featured on the front page of Digg ... so what? Each day up to two dozen sites are featured on Digg, does that mean we should write articles about all of them? Cyde Weys 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This nomination is obviously made in violation of WP:POINT in retaliation against me (the editor who started and basically wrote the article) as I am currently in a dispute with Cyde and I told him about 20 minutes ago that I'm considering reporting his actions at WP:AN/I. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please re-read "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", as you don't seem to understand it. Filing an AFD for an article on a subject I consider non-notable isn't "disrupting Wikipedia", it's a routine course of business. Do you actually have anything to say about why this article should be kept, or does your defense consist solely of attacking my character and motives? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • First, I have not attacked your character, and never have, despite you attacking mine on a number of occassions. (See your closing comment here for an example.) WP:POINT is not precisely what I should've linked to, admittedly, rather my point is that you are listing this article on AfD to antagonize me because I have threatened to report your actions. If this isn't the case, then I'm sorry. At any rate, this is notable irreguardless of your nomination because it recieved over 1,000 diggs in a matter of days, which is exceptional. I'd have listed more detailed information about the extraordinary rate of signups for the game, however that is original research. The article passes WP:WEB, which is a horribly broken guideline anyhow. (See my essay on the subject.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you visit Digg that often? Every day more than a dozen different articles receive over one thousand Diggs. Again, Digg.com isn't so inherently notable that anything it touches automatically becomes notable too. --Cyde Weys 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication that it meets any of the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE or even WP:WEB; WP:NOT an index of all web games. Sandstein 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Digg article establishes notability. WP:WEB is not policy, the same goes for WP:SOFTWARE, the criteria of which eliminates basically all browser-based games from Wikipedia. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The "Digg article" is not an article but appears to be some sort of blog or forum post. WP:WEB is a guideline and authoritative as such. As with WP:SOFTWARE, it boils down to demanding reliable published sources for any claim of notability, which are not in evidence in this case. Sandstein 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you'll read my nomination statement you'll see that I say up to two dozen different links are featured on Digg every day. Merely being featured on Digg doesn't automatically make something so notable that it gets its own article. We're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not an encyclopedia of everything mentioned on a popular internet site. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I must agree with these statements about the Digg article, and it was my intent to list this at AfD if I couldn't find any other articles to establish its notability, especially due to the severe decline in the popularity of the game. It appears to have been a one hit wonder, and certainly doesn't merit a place in Wikipedia. However, the nomination was obviously made in bad faith, and being a big fan of process, I'd rather this nomination be discarded so that I can nominate it under my own name. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Everywhere you go you're constantly accusing me of doing everything in bad faith. Don't you think accusing someone of doing everything in bad faith ... is itself in bad faith, and thus a violation of WP:AGF? --Cyde Weys 05:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Non notable. Fails WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB and WP:NOT.--Peephole 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In what way does this violate WP:V? syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Its only "sources" are the game's website itself and a Digg mention ... Digg mentions, by the way, are very small capsule summaries of no more than 300 characters and are written by Joe Q. Internet. There are no third-party journal or newspaper mentions that discuss this game. Everything in the article comes directly from the game itself, which counts as original research. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per Cyde and Sandstein. This article's references fail WP:RS. SynergeticMaggot 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment True, I didn't consider that. I had considered nominating this myself for deletion earlier, and I wasn't certain if the Digg article was a good source, however I couldn't find WP:RS. I suggest a Speedy Let Me Relist, because it's rather obvious that User:Cyde still made the nomination in bad faith, and I'd rather kill the article myself. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:You have to prove its in bad faith, which you havent. This isnt going to be relisted, its going to be deleted per the consensus its achieving. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I thought I'd proven it rather clearly; I'm involved in a dispute with Cyde and told him that I'm going to report his actions (such as blocking me in a manner and for reasons wholly against blocking policy), and not 20 minutes later he listed this article, which I created, for deletion. If that's not a bad faith nomination, I don't know what is. Sure, the article should be deleted, however the inital nomination shouldn't be a bad faith one, in my opinion, as it could easily open the door for a DRV if a rabid Slave Hack player were to find this deletion discussion and notify the entire game community about it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: I'm uninvolved, and I see no indication of bad faith in this AfD. If Cyde is in a dispute with you, it is reasonable for him to review your contributions, and to nominate for AfD any deletion-worthy article he happens to notice in this course. This is standard operating procedure. Construing it as a personal attack on you would seem to imply that you own the article, which, well, you don't. In any case, this is entirely immaterial to whether this AfD should be relisted, which would serve no purpose at all. I fail to see how even a bad faith, but valid AfD would be a violation of process overturnable via DRV. Sandstein 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Well, it doesn't matter that much anyhow; the point is that it ought to be deleted. I'd rather not bring my dispute with Cyde to this AfD. syphonbyte _(t|c) 07:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while there's something entertainingly meta about playing a computer game that simulates hacking people's computers, it's still non-notable webcruft. Opabinia regalis 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Alexa ranking is 25,316 - that's fairly high. Kingdom of Loathing (which I would argue is definitely notable) is Alexa rank 8,667. I think this may not be notable yet, but could need an article if it gets more popular and persists over time.--Brianyoumans 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That is very high; higher than I'd have expected. I'll save the content of the article, if the game gets popular again and some articles are published on it, I'll do some work to the article and create it.
• Keep Because an admin should know better then violate WP:POINT when in a conflict with a user. If another user, unrelated to the admin in conflict proposes it, I will reconsider then. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein and per nom. Even if this nomination was done in bad faith - and I see zero evidence for Syphonbite's assertion that it was - that doesn't change the fact that bringing it to AfD is the right call. wikipediatrix 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Martinp23 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more I can add, as everyone has already stated exactly why I would delete this. Bad-Faith or not, *I* would have nominated this article for and AfD even if speedy kept. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all -- Deville (Talk) 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia SHOULD be the definitive source for information on internet pop phenomena. A Digg user or Slave Hack player would like to know more about the game... Why not provide them with that additional information? --AStanhope 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NOT. What you think Wikipedia should be is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a source for information on internet pop phenomena. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Rather than trying to make Wikipedia into something that it isn't, why not go somewhere else that already is what you're looking for. For example, I'm sure there's a Wikia that specializes in "internet pop phenomena" .. hell, you could probably start a Wikia for Internet-based games, and who knows, it might even be very popular (I gather there's a fair number of people playing these games). But Wikipedia just isn't the appropriate place, sorry. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cyde is correct; to put it in a less hostile tone, the scope of Wikipedia is too small to include Slave Hack in it at the moment. A Wiki with a scope that included Slave Hack would be a great place for the article, though. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep info baby, johny 5 needs more info. --Tess Tickle 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please come up with something more coherent? This doesn't make sense. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, I can't make heads or tails of that statement. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you two chaps working together? --Tess Tickle 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Not exactly, in fact we are involved in a bit of a dispute. I actually wrote this article, and Cyde nominated it for AfD. I agree with the reason for the AfD, though, so you could say that we're working together to make the encyclopedia better. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. Well, to answer the question, my statement purports to portray my own viewpoint that an enclopeadia should be, well, encyclopeadiac. By stating that johny 5 needs more info, I'm expressing my belief that the encylopeadia would be better served by including the article, and improving it. Happy to help. --Tess Tickle 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, web game obscurata. NTK 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Heh, usually I'm deletionist, but... keep. ugen64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you actually have any reasoning besides doing something out of character for yourself? This is a discussion, not a vote, and you haven't added anything to the discussion other than your Wikipedia philosophy, which is irrelevant regarding the notability of this subject. --Cyde Weys 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rory And The Pirates

Non-notable band, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC (unsigned band formed two days ago) Stormie 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Travislangley 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dj Ady-M

does not meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC; vanity page (article on Ady Mac created by User:Adymac) Stormie 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I first put the speedy deletion tag on it - it's a self-promotional article created for vanity purposes. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Sasquatch! Music Festival (This was done on Aug 18 but the AfD was not closed, so I'm doing it even though I participated in this AfD. The consensus was unanimous, so I'm being bold.) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sasquatch Music Festival

not the correct title of the festival. Sasquatch! Music Festival is a better article and should be kept Evan Reyes 04:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy merge and redirect to Sasquatch! Music Festival. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Travislangley 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Sasquatch! Music Festival feydey 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — and redirect Martinp23 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - thre's nothing to merge since the target article already has the information. -- Whpq 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per feydey. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per feydey. --EndlessVince 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can I go ahead and create the redirect page now? Evan Reyes 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do it. --EndlessVince 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VoicePulse

Reads Like An AD again IMac4ME 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, mostly ad content, no indication of meeting WP:CORP evident from the article. Sandstein 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I am reluctant to move for deletion with this many ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article was one big advertisement for the company with at least some of the stuff copied from their web site. I've editted teh article down to a stub with teh remoal of the advertising text, but agree with Ultimus that they look notable. -- Whpq 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite and expand without the marketing mixed in. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite — plenty of ghits, but needs expanding Martinp23 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Reading like an ad means an article needs a rewrite, not a nuclear bomb. --Daniel Olsen 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California cheeseburger (second nomination)

This term appears to have originated as a joke on the Simpsons reflecting an obscure urban legend. There's no evidence that it is in widespread use or indeed in any use at all outside Wikipedia, so it should be deleted as a non-notable neologism (WP:NEO, WP:WINAD). In the first AfD discussion, the principal argument for keeping it was that it in fact was a verifiable Simpsons joke, but that does not make it encyclopedic in and of itself, in my opinion. Sandstein 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As a matter of fact, this episode will be coming out on DVD today. Someone might want to check out the commentary track to see if the term was invented by a Simpsons writer or if it actually existed before the Simpsons. Based on what I know, though, I'd say redirect to "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson". All the Google references seem to refer to this episode (or to a literal cheeseburger from California). Zagalejo 05:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Another comment I do think that some original Simpsons jokes are notable, like Can't sleep, clown will eat me or Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. However, this joke hasn't had the same cultural impact as any of those. Zagalejo 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — or merge per above. Martinp23 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Zagalejo GrahameS 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I watch the Simpsons and I can't remember this at all. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of ethnic slurs. Green caterpillar 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I do recall the episode, it is not notable. Most California cheeseburgers on google are legit recipes (I didn't check them all, but beef seemed to be a primary ingredient :-) ) --TeaDrinker 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per above -- Deville (Talk) 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• D'oh-lete! This is a minor joke and has no significance whatsoever. --Thatdog 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Forgettable gag; definitely not on the menu at In-N-Out. Dryman 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN per above will381796 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superflexitag

Basically an ad, though it's a strange product to be advertising to encyclopedia readers. 113 Google hits. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. On a side note: What!? aren't Opabinia tagged with superflexitags? ;-) -- Koffieyahoo 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, with the five eyes we can see the taggers coming from a mile away. You just think we're extinct. Opabinia regalis 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — spam Martinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I did a double-take because I thought it said "superflexitagalistic" for some reason. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Superflexitagalisticexpialadosheet, this sounds like a total ad, so kindly please delete. --Sertrel 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam -- Deville (Talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam and doesn't meet WP:Notability criteria for marine mammal identification tags available with hot foil double deep embossed or laser printed as required. - Yomangani^talk 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Michael High School

The content sounds like it was copied out of the school newsletter, but the grammar gets a "needs improvement". A large volume of unwikified matter, but it doesn't assert notability, doesn't cite sources, and contains mostly irrelevant unencyclopedic banalities. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment possible copyvio, relisted as such. -- Koffieyahoo 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Copyvio is gone. What's left is a rather generic high school stub with a few references. All high schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Given the current, very minimal content, it doesn't meet my personal criteria for H.S. notability. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Looks a little better now. — RJH (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the usual reasons, this is a secondary school on Navajo Indian reservation grounds. Feel free to lend me a hand with the rewrite. Silensor 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand — per TruthbringerToronto Martinp23 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per TruthbringerToronto. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as usual. Gazpacho 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - high schools are notable. Wikification is always the better option over deletion. --Daniel Olsen 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete directory entry with some random facts. -- Koffieyahoo 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps it needs work, but not deletion. Konman72 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow time for improvement. Calsicol 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for continued organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ok then you just volunteered to clean it up... remember afd is not to be mistaken for cleanup.  ALKIVAR™ 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Computerjoe's talk 12:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meadows Frozen Custard

Custard stand. Herostratus 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - looks like quite a large franchise. ben 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - a small franchised chain, fairly localized; if people in Pennsylvania and Maryland feel really strongly about these restaurants, maybe... but otherwise, I don't think we should bother. I just took out a paragraph about franchises being available; it needs a rewrite in general. --Brianyoumans 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm from western PA and it's all people talk about here, just wish I had a better way of showing it..I also wanted to add it only because it's becoming incredibly popular and it's spreading quite fast.Sizzlenuts 06:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If "it's all people talk about here", there should be magazine feature articles, major news coverage, books, and reviews that you can cite to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. Uncle G 11:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's been open for 56 years I'm having a hard time finding recent articles about it, it hasn't done anything recently(in the past year or so) that required media attention, although I have seen newspaper stories a while back, I havent been able to find any online. Also custard stands don't get "major news coverage"...it's not major news when a business is selling custard so that's why it's been quite hard to find, but I do know that it's a landmark in Duncansville and I'm doing my best to find credible sources.
• Weak Delete — Not a huge number of Ghits. Needs sources which assert the notability of the subject Martinp23 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The chain has been around for over fifty years, so it must be somewhat popular. Zagalejo 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above, opinion may change pending notability-asserting sources. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Regional chains are notable. Article does need better sourcing. Rohirok 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Notability not established. wikipediatrix 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben, Sizzlenuts, Zagalejo, and Rohirok. --HResearcher 00:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A good clean article about a chain with at least 12 locations, I'd say that deserves an article. Could use a few more blue links, but this is much better than most 2 day old articles by far. --Daniel Olsen 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Daniel Olsen. SliceNYC 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Culvert

Book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 90 hits (36 unique) on Google searching for "the culvert" "clint adams". -Elmer Clark 05:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. An article on an autobio on a nn subject. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elge

Book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 37 hits (14 unique) on Google searching for elge "M.J. Siciliano". -Elmer Clark 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The content here is only about the characters and the plot anyway; not really encyclopaedic. ben 06:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NN Martinp23 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bleach; The Movie

Possible hoax? No imbd listing, delete. --Peta 05:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete — Not notable from what I can see - possible hoax and fails Google test as many of the Google results are for a Japanese movie called Bleach Martinp23 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, under suspician of being a hoax. Jefffire 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe not a hoax, but certainly a nonnotable student film. NawlinWiki 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if you check out the official site listed in the article, you'll find that it doesn't even exist yet. -- Whpq 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Comparable to The Blair Witch Project? Not. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFILM: Unreleased Films. --Thatdog 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blagman

Website of no demonstrated significance, delete --Peta 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per "Blagman.co.uk ... is a UK based site which aims to introduce readers to new products and services.". Advertising. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could we not argue the same for website pages such as those for IGN.com? Surely if people want information on a site it should be shown on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamerswave (talk • contribs) .
• Delete — no assertation of notability. For an article to stay on wikipedia, the notability of the subject must be asserted plainly in the article and must be backed up with verifiable sources. Martinp23 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ultimus took the words out of my mouth. Or fingers. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no Alexa ranking, reads like an advertisment, no assertion of notability, hasn't been featured in media enough times to make it notable by itself. The user's only contributions are based in that article and in adding external links to articles pointing to that webpage. Sorry, first become notable, then create the article at Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Fear to Flattery

Book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 111 hits (7 unique) on Google searching for "From Fear to Flattery" "Tony Hughes". -Elmer Clark 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see much buzz about this, or any reviews. --Brianyoumans 06:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — No sources, too short, nn Martinp23 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeze Tag (Mod)

Game mod, delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if expanded for significance by way of reference to other games that it's a mod for, and sourced. If it can't be sourced then delete. MLA 10:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — unless sourced Martinp23 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment under which WP:NOT point does this fall? And being a game mod has nothing to do with anything, there are are loads of articles about mods out there, we should be debating according to WP:RS, WP:CITE etc. ShaunES 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The nominator may have been thinking of WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section, which specifically discourages tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides, which this article strongly resembles. wikipediatrix 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please specify where in this article "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides" can be noticed. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, unsourced. wikipediatrix 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourced. Please define: 'non-notable'. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no sources in this article. There's an external links section which COULD be used as sources, but it currently isn't. And as far as the definition of "non-notable" goes, I'm not going to play the word-parsing game with you. If you feel the subject is indeed notable, go ahead and state why. wikipediatrix 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite the lack of argument, there's no reason to get mad. Let's try to post facts rather than judgement and keep a good user relationship. Please get used to the subject in discussion (Quake 3) before stating the value of an article. (i.e. you don't expect a "poet" to evaluate/write about "engineering", right?). Please read: WP:RS . Please note that id Software is the publisher of Quake3. Please note that the Wikipedia's Quake3 main page reffers to Planetquake and Quake3world as sources of daily information about the game. Remember that Wikipedia is all about COLLABORATION. Please try to help find what you call sources instead of judging a subject that you're not familiar with. I'd like to remember that this article is only 2 or 3 days old. To show the value of the article for those who are not familiar with, I've posted links from the most famous sites about games showing the different games in which this mod is present and played. More than that, this article adds more information about this mod on the Quake3 page since almost all mods have their own page and information and open doors for future modifications. Next time just try to define 'non-notable' or try to vote on topics that you are familiar enough to state what is 'notable' or not. Not to be rude, but I was reading your user talk and noticed that this is not the first time you act this way. BUT if you're really willing to delete this topic, I aknowledge your attitude and will be satisfied with that as stated below. Hope you don't take it personal since I'm just tryind to expose my point of view and also I believe that you're mature enough to move ahead with this. PS: I've also sourced and detailed the sources including references. Hope you all like it. Loukinho 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If your position is so obviously solid, you should be able to state it concisely without spending so much time talking about me. I'll ignore the rest of your condescending flame-bait. I am not the nominator of the article, so take your attitude to him, not me. And nowhere in your rant did you explain why, if you've just now sourced the article (and I see that you have), why did you insist that it was sourced before, when it wasn't? wikipediatrix 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Wikipediatrix here even though I take a different position on the notability. The onus is on the article and it's editors to show why an article should be included. The false analogy of not expecting a poet to comment on engineering is very unhelpful for the purpose of wikipedia as a closer one would be expecting an encyclopedia contributor to comment on the validity of an encyclopedia article. By all means challenge views but you should do so not by trying to undermine another editor's legitimate perspective through what could easily be construed as personal attacks but to instead show why your own view should be accepted. MLA 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, perhaps leave the note about it in the Quake 3 article. humblefool® 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added sources on this article and I'm still working to improve it. This article is a STUB. I'll agree if you decide to delete this article even though I will keep on feeling that this article is missing on Quake3>Mods section. But no worries about that. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand - the sources you need to save this from deletion aren't just the ones that prove the mod exists (the links to download pages in the current article), but rather you need reliable sources to prove the mod is notable and not just one of countless other mods out there. For instance, a print magazine review or an established highly reputable website. If that kind of coverage doesn't exist, then the mod should stay as an entry in the Q3 article's Mod section (or the mod sections of the other respective games). --SevereTireDamage 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the "sources" meet the standard described in WP:RS, and after looking I can't find any better ones. Also seems pretty non-notable, as are most mods. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was change to a dab page. It used to be one anyway. - Bobet 09:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binge

Dictionary-type definition only; separate pages on binge eating and binge drinking already exist; I've updated Wiktionary entry to include the slant of this article. ben 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Binge drinking and add a Wiktionary link to binge in the latter. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — As above Martinp23 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Netsnipe. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Make disambiguation, with links to Binge eating, binge drinking, wictionary entry, and others. Not all binges are drinking binges. --Daniel Olsen 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Make disambiguation. I totally agree with Daniel Olsen. Some binges involve alcohol, others eating, others illicit drugs, and others sex. Redirect binge to binging, and create the disambiguation page there. Rohirok 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Convert to DAB, per Daniel Olsen. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Make disambiguation, per Daniel Olsen. --Phoenix Hacker 21:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with disambig solution Mallanox 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doc Ozone and Gurus Network

No evidence of notability provided. Delete--Peta 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — No assertation of notability Martinp23 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

+Delete fails WP:NOTE. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovemyseat

Travel website, no evidence of notability provided. --Peta 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Reads like an ad, too. 1ne 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, uncreative spam. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — spam Martinp23 13:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. per nom—dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this page. While the term is not as widely in use as Boomers or Gen X, it turns up plenty of results in a lexis-nexis search. The term to be used to describe the generation born between 1954-1964 is still being debated, but this is one of the more frequently referenced. It has as much of a reason to be on this site as many other entries.

[edit] Generation Jones

Not notable; advertising. This guy coins this term, he writes a book, and I don't actually see that it has caught on - about 1850 ghits for "generation jones", 1660 for "Jonathan Pontell". For comparison, 'generation x' gets well over 2 million. --Brianyoumans 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Update - Redoing my search, I think my statistics above came from Yahoo search, not Google. "Generation Jones" actually gets about 13000 Google hits, "Jonathan Pontell" about 26000 - so this is a bit more notable than I thought. I still think it is kind of lame - "generation x" gets almost 4 million on Google. --Brianyoumans 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep I've written a fair bit of stuff criticising this kind of generational categorisation, and the term comes up fairly regularly - on a quick search, I found five independent allusions in discussions where I've been involved. JQ 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Expand not a hoax. C56C 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't claim that this was a hoax, I said that it didn't seem to be notable. The article seems to be rather inaccurate in that it claims that the term has become popular and is increasing in use, when in fact it seems to be rarely used. One representative page I saw (from 2004) was a posting of an article using the term prominently - and a large number of the comments underneath were from people saying, "Generation Jones? I've never heard that term. Where did it come from?" My favorite comment was "More marketing b.s. from a pollster trying to make a name for himself." Brianyoumans 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — passes Google test Martinp23 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've never heard of it either, but fortunately I'm not the arbiter of verifiability here. :-) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per John Quiggin. --Daniel Olsen 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with any notion of a "Google test", since 99% of the stuff on the web doesn't meet WP:RS. That said, there are a fair number of reliable sources out there for this term: CNN[12], The Cincinnati Enquirer[13], The Columbia Daily Tribune[14], Scoop (news website)[15], Entrepreneur magazine[16], etc. As such, the article needs cleanup, not deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the concept was certainly in the public eye, for a brief period of time in association with the release of the book. All of the examples you give are stories about the book. I'm just not sure whether the term has had much life outside of Pontell's book. But obviously I'm on the losing side here... Brianyoumans 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Where else can I go to look up a term I've never heard of before? I'm glad Wikipedia has a definition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.17.172.5 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. I have heard this term discussed in the media and other places outside the context of Pontell's book, and discussed (and criticized) by other generational historians like William Strauss and Neil Howe. "Generation X" originated with a book too. KleenupKrew 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bladed weapon

This article is currently a list of bladed weapons, a duplicate of Category:Blade_weapons, and in fact much of the content is the same. The category more than adequately covers this topic, so suggesting delete. ColourBurst 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm also not really sure how you would usefully expand the content. The history of weapon development is probably better handled in the articles for individual weapons - this is never going to be anything more than a list, so why not just use the category form? --Brianyoumans 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — As we already have so many seperate articles, there really is no need for this one, and this article has nothing more in it than the category and the articles it links to. Martinp23 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to List of bladed weapons? I have no problem with lists that duplicate categories, since lists can also include redlinks, which encourage expansion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Awakening of the Dreamer

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 10 hits (9 unique) on Google searching for "The Awakening of the Dreamer" "Derrick J. Johnson" OR "derrick johnson". -Elmer Clark 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,311,530. --Brianyoumans 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, books have difference criteria for AfD then people and other things. This book should not be considered for deletion because it does not fall into the establish criteria.

"Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify [as notable]." Valoem ^talk 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per nom Martinp23 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Valoem: I don't see anything saying that this bookis found in even one library, and the fact that it is published by a vanity press pushes this further into doubt. Martinp23 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Martinp23: this book has an ISBN: 0759627738 [17] therefore it is a keep. EDIT: Also the precedence has been set mayn times before, breaking precedence is very harmful to Wikipedia in the long run. If you look my quotation you can read that basically any book that can be found in a library AND/OR has an ISBN-number is notable. I did not make this rule up you can find it on Wikipedia:Notability-books.Valoem ^talk 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Have to disagree here. Anyone can get an ISBN number - what the guideline is saying is that a book must also have a presence in libraries. Dlyons493 Talk 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Actually it CLEARLY says AND/OR. The slash "/" means can have both OR have one. Here I will show you the quote. "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website".[18] This quote is clearly not left for interpretation. I did not make these rules I am just trying to shows you that precedence are what keeps wikipedia together and this precedence has clearly been set. Valoem ^talk 00:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete Going by the placement of the comma in the full quote (and misplaced commas can be quite important http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2006/08/the_tragedy_of_.html) it appears that it needs one of the three things you listed *and* "with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual." Which, being a vanity publication, it doesn't have. --Jamoche 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since it appears to be a vanity publication, no citable published reviews or significant library presence (I couldn't even find a copy in the LOC). The "usually" in the cited sentence makes it a conditional statement, and this kind of book is the exception that was intended when the sentence was written. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, AuthorHouse is indeed a vanity press which will publish anything for a fee, and not a very high fee. One AuthorHouse title which I personally know to have sold less than fifty copies has an Amazon sales rank of 1,417,018, so this book has probably sold far fewer. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Having an ISBN number is scarcely an indication of importance. You can buy them directly from Bowker; they cost $250 for a block of ten. An ISBN number is part of the service from self-publishing outfits; I think Lulu will sell them to you one at a time. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhpBuns

Software to generate web pages from SQL databases (I think). My concern is notability/importance: Sourceforge shows less than 5000 downloads for all versions and about 400 downloads for the current version. Also, the text is directly copied from the developers web site and nearly every other site in google's first ten, Since the author was user:TheBuns, it's probably an authorized (self) use, but the repetition of the description on so many pages suggests no one at any of these software and developers sites cares enough to write an expanded description. However, esoteric software is beyond my range of experience. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable and may well be spam. Jefffire 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Spamtastically non notable Martinp23 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derrick J. Johnson

Non-notable poet. Only claims of notability listed in article are his book The Awakening of the Dreamer, published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press (and which I've nominated for deletion above), and an appearance in a non-notable 2000 film called "The Perfect Plan" which is not listed on the IMDB (the only movie of that title is a 2006 short). Only 60 Google hits (23 unique) for "Derrick J. Johnson", many of which do not appear to be relevant. -Elmer Clark 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. Alternately, if his book is judged to be notable, then merge with that article. Jefffire 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per Jefffire Martinp23 12:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-published, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balloon (Music Group)

Delete non-notable band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only 7 Google hits [19]. The prod-tag was removed claiming "album on major record label". --Bruce1ee 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Band worked with notable musicians (see article), and have supported Sarah McLachlan on her 1992 US tour. Album released on RCA Records. Catchpole 07:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Catchpole. --HResearcher 11:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Meets crtieria in WP:MUSIC per Catchpole Martinp23 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The album was actually released by an independent label called Dedicated which, it later transpired, was being funded by RCA. This practice was very common in the UK in the early '90's as being on a major label was automatically deemed "uncool" in parts of the media. Spiritualized, Cranes and Chapterhouse were on the same imprint. Up to you as to whether or not you think that matters. No vote from me.Ac@osr 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - meets criteria of WP:MUSIC PT ^(s-s-s-s) 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above --Daniel Olsen 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Mayes

Non-notable writer. Only claims of notability listed in article are his book Science, the universe and God, published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press, and a website called Theories with Problems. Only 20 Google hits (9 unique) for "Keith Mayes" "Science, the universe and God", and only 97 Google hits (33 unique) for "Keith Mayes" "Theories with Problems". His website has an Alexa ranking of 759,786. Also nominating Theories with problems, which redirects to his page. -Elmer Clark 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Keith Mayes was nominated for the 1992 British Academy Television Award - Best Sound (Fiction) [20] also look at his Internet Movie Database entry: [21]. Is this the same Keith Mayes? --HResearcher 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• a writer who is also a sound man, I think not. But I don't consider him noteworthy on either count. His book scores in the 1.4million range per Amazon, no trace of independent review found. His website has 19 incoming links, of which 9 internal, and 3 from www.lacoctelera.com, 3 open directories, and 2 to Pointoflife.com, which appears to be a personal commercial site of a certain Michael Levy. Delete per nom Ohconfucius 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubies and Rickshaws

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 36 hits (18 unique) on Google searching for "Rubies and Rickshaws" "Vatsala Virdee" -Elmer Clark 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spam.--Peta 06:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --HResearcher 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aboriginal and European agricultural practices in Australia

High school student essay on agricultural practices in Australia. Similar ground is covered in a more encyclopedic fashion in Agriculture in Australia, delete per WP:NOT. I should point out for non-Australians that Aboriginal people in Australia did not practice agriculture so this essay is basically comparing the enviromental impact of hunter-gather civilisation to an agricultural one.--Peta 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - More or less a poor pov fork of Agriculture in Australia. michael ^talk 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge non OR to Agriculture in Australia. --HResearcher 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — POV fork, as above Martinp23 11:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have an article on Agriculture in Australia. There isn't much in this article that could be merged with that article and it is not a likely search term. Certainly, there was no agriculture as commonly understood before 1788. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the article appears to be more about sustainable agriculture or land management in Australia and would provide a start for this. Paul foord 09:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete—First two paras contain much mythology about Aboriginal people. What is accurate is, I think, already better presented elsewhere. I do think though that it would be good to have an article about Aboriginal land and food management practices (or whatever they should be called—I agree 'agriculture' is not appropriate). Dougg 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth-Driven Thinking

Philosophy apparently based on a book of the same title published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of the presence of this philosophy outside that book. Only 493 hits (132 unique) on Google searching for "Truth-Driven Thinking", and only 58 Google hits (28 unique) if you add the name of the author of the book that coined this term and search for "Truth-Driven Thinking" "Stephen L. Gibson" OR "Stephen Gibson" -Elmer Clark 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --HResearcher 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there isn't even an article about the author. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom Martinp23 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Nomination done by sockpuppet of permabanned user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesTeterenko (talk • contribs).

[edit] International Hockey Hall of Fame

Non-notable museum--Up&Down 07:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I've yet to see any notability guidelines on museums. RGTraynor 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per RGTraynor. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --HResearcher 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure what the issue is here. ccwaters 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — No reason to delete Martinp23 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - bad faith nom. BoojiBoy 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - nominator has been indef blocked for being a sock of the infamous VaughanWatch. Kirjtc2 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a decent article, and the IHHOF may not be as famous as the other one,there are plenty of much less notable museums with articles. -- Scorpion0422 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep the nominator is blocked and probably this is bad faith nomination Yuckfoo 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frinkles

Two-volume book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 12 hits (10 unique) on Google searching for frinkles "Eddie Wayne May" OR "Eddie May" -Elmer Clark 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Copyvio from listed sources Martinp23 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above -- Whpq 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falling in the Garden

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 47 hits (17 unique) on Google searching for "Falling in the Garden" "Walter Klimczak" -Elmer Clark 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, a sequel by the same guy (11 Google hits, 8 unique for "This Place Only" "Walter Klimczak"), and the author's page itself (202 Google hits, 59 unique, and not all relevant for "Walter Klimczak").

• This Place Only
• Walter Klimczak

• Delete — None of them give any assertation of notability, and all are very short Martinp23 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Louise Lu

Non-notable writer. Only claims of notability listed in article are her books A Little Story-Book Worm (申娜英语童话集) and The Dream-Quest, the former published in Singapore and the latter published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Only 38 Google hits (21 unique) for "Stephanie Louise Lu". Only 24 Google hits (9 unique) for "A Little Story-Book Worm" OR 申娜英语童话集 "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". Only 32 Google hits (19 unique) for "The Dream-Quest" "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". -Elmer Clark 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Not notable Martinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadows of the Dark

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 235 hits (82 unique) on Google searching for "Shadows of the Dark" "John Zaffis". I also suspect that the author, John Zaffis, may not pass WP:Notability, but I am not entirely certain. Someone might want to take a look at it and consider listing it if they think likewise. -Elmer Clark 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — NN book, by a vanity press Martinp23 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Weber

Author claims a fairly large bibliography, but a Google search for "Nancy Weber" "The Playgroup" OR "The Life Swap" OR "Brokenhearted" OR "Seagull: The Musical" OR "Party Math" yields only 171 hits (107 unique). This means that the name Nancy Weber appears with ANY of the titles of her works only 171 times, strongly suggesting that none are particularly notable. The Life Swap, which according to the article is the work she is "primarily known for," was recently republished by vanity press iUniverse, a strong sign of non-notability, particularly when considered with the Googe results. That article seems to claim that the book inspired a reality show of the same name, but the IMDB lists no TV show by that name. Talk:Nancy Weber also indicates that she edited the article herself, strengthening the case for it being a vanity article. I am also nominating the one of her books which has an article:

• The Life Swap

-Elmer Clark 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I'm not familiar with her stuff, but in Googling "Nancy Weber" "Life Swap" I get 218 hits, topped with this Observer article. As these things go, it looks legit. - Corporal Tunnel 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per User:Corporal Tunnel. --HResearcher 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A quick Library of Congress search suggests she had 4 books published - "Life Swap" (published by Dial Press), "Lily, where’s your daddy?" (R. Marek), "The Playgroup" (St. Martin's Press/Marek), and "Brokenhearted" (Dutton). Looks like Life Swap is in a reasonable number of libraries, too. It was first published in 1974, and I expect it probably went out of print well before the Web became popular. - makomk 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, none of those in any way resemble vanity presses, either. - makomk 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • According to The Life Swap, it was reissued by iUniverse, which is a vanity press. However, I now agree the article should be kept. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. There are a couple of other writers using the name, but have a middle name. "Nancy weber" scores 12 hits on Amazon. the majority (I would guess 8) appear to be her style of book, which score in the 1.2 - 4.5 million range of popularity. It appears that her book Brokenhearted was reviewed by at least one credible journal (Publishers Journal) per Amazon. Ohconfucius 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea Shepard

Non-notable writer. Her three books were published by vanity presses iUniverse and Xlibris, and she has written some stuff that she's posted online. No claim of notability is made about any of her published works, although one of her online stories was called "highly popular," without citation. There are only 1510 Google hits (just 265 of which are unique) for "Chelsea Shepard" "Worthy of a Master" OR "The Freeman's Captive" OR "Once Bitten". This means that her name has only appeared with the name of any one of her published works 1510 times, and in only 265 distinct locations. The story "Association," which is called "highly popular," results in only 924 Google hits (131 unique) when searching for "Chelsea Shepard" Association "Adrian Hunter" (Adrian Hunter is the co-author). -Elmer Clark 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Passes WP:BIO Martinp23 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Martinp23. And delete User:Elmer Clark! (just kidding) --HResearcher 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Casamassina

Article has been in existence for about a year, but there has been no successful expansion despite repeated requests. Instead, the article seems to be a magnet for hoax and unverifiable information [22] [23], some of it even "joke" information from subject's own blog. [24] I am nominating the article for deletion to see if the Wikipedia community thinks that there is enough here to keep the article around or not. --Elonka 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:BIO. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is an okay stub for a (relatively prominent) video game journalist. I know the only reason I've come across this entry is because I've cited his articles on Wikipedia. Guermantes 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he is arguably the most famous editor at IGN and a noteworthy person. The article just needs to be improved. TJ Spyke 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per BaseballBaby, Guermantes, and TJ Spyke. --HResearcher 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Obvious keep. Very noteworthy person. Konman72 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep journalist for a very notibale videogame website. I see no reason to delete. --Edgelord 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mulcahey's Meatheads

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 29 hits (18 unique) on Google searching for "Mulcahey's Meatheads" "Vernon Holmberg". -Elmer Clark 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 65 hits on just the title, but they all appear to be either press releases or book finder lists - no reviews or other comments. - Corporal Tunnel 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails notability tests Martinp23 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOTE. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absent some indication of notability. -- Visviva 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. 1ne 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Dracula

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability, except maybe that it was published in the "Editor's Choice Series," which, considering it's a vanity publisher, is not terribly meaningful. Only 369 hits (74 unique) on Google searching for "Maria Dracula" "Denise Roman". -Elmer Clark 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I'm not familiar with her work and get 14,200 Google hits on the title alone, which is not firm evidence of anything but, well, is what it is. This is a Young Adult book, so it's likely to be invisible to adult readers. On the other hand, she has spammed Amazon's reviews, which is a no-no (if not relevant here). - Corporal Tunnel 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Corporal Tunnel. --HResearcher 01:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Bulk Google results are useless for assessing notability for anything but internet memes, and even then they're questionable. Even worse, the only Denise Roman book in the Library of Congress catalog is Fragmented identities : popular culture, sex, and everyday life in postcommunist Romania. That said, ForeWord (magazine) recognized Maria Dracula as one of their "Book of the Year" winners[25], which might just be the very barest assertion of notability. It also might not; I keep going back and forth on the credibility of the magazine. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. The nomination was done by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. -- JamesTeterenko 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous members of Mensa

to much vandalism to this page, to many non-notable, unsourced people listed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Up&Down (talk • contribs).

Weak Keep At present it looks fairly well-sourced to me and none of the names are red-linked. Although I'm not entirely sure it's a notable topic so I'm saying weak keep.--T. Anthony 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed all unsourced names so I'll just say keep I suppose.--T. Anthony 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to Weak Keep due to problemattic sourcing.--T. Anthony 09:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - well referenced article. WilyD 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep — Well sourced but could just be list cruft Martinp23 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective listing of people. What exactly qualifies someone as famous? Would it be Members of Mensa with Wikipedia articles? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • C'mon, the article should just be at "List of members of Mensa" - but then someone would argue "since it's not complete, delete it" or some other specious argument. Improperly named article is not a criterion for deletion, but for moving. WilyD 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as this is sourced and has a solid enough inclusion criteria that it is not Original research. Article name and body could use some work (as Zer0faults pointed out "famous" is totally objective and should be dropped from the name), but that is editorial, not a reason to delete.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion, or something more notable still like George W. Bush would be gone. Along the same lines, if George W. Bush were unsourced, you wouldn't say to delete it, you'd say add sources. Wikipedia needs to step it up regarding this article. That said, zerofaults brings up a good point: there should be a clearer set of guidelines for inclusion established. Jacqui^★ 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:VaughanWatch. BoojiBoy 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; Mensa is notable, the people listed are notable, and the references make it verifiable. Antandrus (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or rename. What makes a person famous? rename to List of Mensa Members that have wiki articles--AfterDark 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spangenberg Theatre

This is not a highschool, its a theater of a highschool and it is not currently operational. No claim of notibility. Delete Musaabdulrashid 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. Martinp23 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. non notable. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Site management

Article appears to be a copy of documentation specific to the workplace of the author; original author has posted all content (all other edits are tagging); article lacks context. which is currently adopted to maintain the required / desired productivity at the site. 'The site'? Article is not really encyclopedic. --Draicone ^(talk) 08:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - still can't figure out what site management is actually referring to, and what there is of the article looks like instructional text. -- Whpq 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per nom Martinp23 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like a chapter from a textbook or manual - probably is. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Site Management is a notable topic. The article just needs major cleanup and wikification. --HResearcher 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - not to mention a total rewrite. Haven't we got enough articles demanding this sort of attention already? --Draicone ^(talk) 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Evangeline Ting

Deprodded. I see things that I'd consider assertions of notability, but the "next top celebrity" line is obviously suspect, and there's no indication she meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--Kchase T 08:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Almost did this myself when I saw it on new pages. Dekimasu 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — No sources, unverified. Martinp23 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate if she ever becomes the next big Ting. NawlinWiki 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, verifiability. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:VAIN, in no way does subject meet WP:BIO. ALso her webpage is a dead end. Ohconfucius 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. (Appears to be userified as well) - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Career India

A chaotic hodge-podge of advice, directory listing of courses and universities and repeated copyright violations such as [26]. Fails: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not since "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s" There are very few or no other articles that link to this one — mainly because it's an irreversible and confusing mess. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Arvind devaraj (talk • contribs) has now moved the article to User:Arvind devaraj/Career India.
• Strong Delete — WP:NOT per nom Martinp23 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid Delight F.C.

Non-notable amateur five-a-side football (soccer) team; there are thousands of such teams, all of which compete below what is considered serious competition. Established consensus on WikiProject Football is that only teams from levels 1-10 of the English football league system are considered inherently notable and this team falls a long way short. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. aLii 09:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per nom Martinp23 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. What's next: articles about high school football coaches? —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - someone has evidently put a lot of work in but sadly the team is just not notable. The same argument could also be made for Sparta Padiham FC who seem to play in the same league/organisation ChrisTheDude 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. - Pal 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uppermill Football Club

Football (soccer) team that competes at level 13 14 of the English football league system. Established consensus on WikiProject Football is that only teams from levels 1-10 are considered inherently notable. Article was previously prodded but original author disputed it on the grounds of it being a grassroots club that was notable on a local scale; it being notable only on a local scale is exactly why it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like it is at level 14. feydey 09:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like you're right. [27] Duly corrected. Qwghlm 09:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. aLii 09:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per nom Martinp23 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. - Pal 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Qwghlm - That is a selective synopsis of my argument and you lower youself by its use. You are a typical premier league team fan - You have no concept of grassroots football.
• Strong Keep The question we have to ask here is whether the information presented in this article is verifiable. It is. The official website for this club is here. Secondly, the subject in question has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research as well. I view that this article should remain. Its relative obscurity does not make it unencyclopedic. Moreover, the lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy. If we began to delate this article, i am afraid that this would set a presedence in the way no-league football clubs are being delt with on Wikipedia. On top of this, this article in question is part of WikiProject Non-league football! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am intending to offer a compromise. Those clubs which can be verified within the English football league system should be included. That means those clubs which have their own websites should be included here. The reason is clear. All clubs within the English football league system in the lower divisions have the potential to be promoted to step 1 of the National League System.

No, sorry I don't think you're right here. The fact they have a website is neither here nor there, and in fact we should be looking at third-party sources for verifiability, not ones published by the organisation itself. I think the level 10 minimum as a standard of notability is fairly generous myself, wouldn't have argued if the bar had been set a bit higher, and I'm a BIG fan of non-league. Consequently, Delete. As for setting a precedent - Yes. That's what happens when a consensus of notability is taken into account. Clubs who don't, or who haven't in the past, played at Level 10 or higher are going to get votes here to Delete. - fchd 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But there must be exceptions to this. For example on the talk page of this article, there is an engaging argument to keep this article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There has to be a cutoff point, and this is well below it. --kingboyk 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Alright. Can the cutoff point be at level 11 (or step 7) at the very least? The reason why I propose this is because step 7 (or level 11) clubs are members of the National League System. One must take note that this article is part of WikiProject Non-league football. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, especially When is a club notable?, may prove helpful for reference purposes and continued debate. Alias Flood 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of diplomatic missions

I initially prodded a few of these, but when I discovered how many more there were, I decided more community input from AfD would be a good idea. All of the articles are just lists of where the countries' missions are located. I think this violates WP:NOT's section on directories. It's useful information, but it's better placed at wikitravel. If someone knows whether the creator of these articles can relicense them under wikitravel's CC license, please follow-up with him at User talk:Kransky. Thanks!--Kchase T 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn below.--Kchase T 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Albanian diplomatic missions
• Australian diplomatic missions
• Japanese diplomatic missions
• Nepalese diplomatic missions
• Vietnamese diplomatic missions

The issue at hand raised by Kchase is whether the diplomatic mission articles are simply lists. I referred to the Wikipedia is not a Directory for further clarification.

The first no-no mentioned is that Wikipedia should not be a list or repository of loosely associated topics. A list of aphorisms or quotes is definitely out, but reference tables and tabular information can be included. If the essence of the prohibition can be explained by is different between the examples, then it would be that what is listed should be reasonably focussed and the list in itself be reasonably integral. You would accept The Ten Commandments or the Periodic Table or Nixon's Enemies List, but not Chinese proverbs, since there is no direct relationship between the parts to one whole (though The Thoughts of Chairman Mao is okay).

I am not just listing a country's embassies, but I am also showing its diplomatic network. That is the whole that merits its inclusion. Where a country chooses to fly its flag gives an indication where a country chooses to rationalise and focus its diplomatic activities. Only by looking at the matricies of who's-represented-where in the form of a list can you discern some interesting choices - Why has Iceland got an embassy in Dar es Salaam? and Senegal has a consulate in Siena? How come Jordan has an embassy in Tel Aviv but Indonesia doesn't? Who has a wider network in Africa - Japan or China? Which countries choose to send an ambassador to Pyongyang ?

None of these articles can be considered to be in violation of the second point - they are neither genealogical or phonebook entries, nor do they violate the third point - they are not resources for conducting business.

I do not consider Wikitravel to be an appropriate solution, as the intention of the lists is to chart the constellation of diplomatic relations of countries around the world today, and not to help tourists who have lost their passports.

I foresee three solutions:

(a) the motion to delete the articles is defeated (b) additional content is added to the entries each article, such per List of locations in Spira which is cited as an example of merged groups of small articles based on a core topic. There is a limit to how much extra information can be given, and we could be just repeating details in other articles. (c) The pages are deleted and the contents are appended to a relevant article, like foreign relations of Japan. This would however make the other articles considerably large and I predict people will end up wondering why aren't they given their own space.

Kransky 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (author)

I should have been more specific. I meant subsection three, about directories and yellow pages. I acknowledge that it is weakly covered by that section and, frankly, I don't think these pages ought to be deleted based upon my weak argument to WP:NOT. As I alluded to above, the reason I've nominated them is because I don't think this content is appropriate for an encyclopedia, though I also don't want to see it deleted outright (but taken to wikitravel). To describe foreign policy or a diplomatic network in the way Kransky would like, prose seems more appropriate ("America has poor relations with the Middle East and doesn't even have an embassy in X country... etc."). I am reconsidering this nom, but I would like more input.--Kchase T 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The intention of the list is not so much to say "America has poor relations with the Middle East and doesn't even have an embassy in X", but rather to let the readers themselves work out the connections. That is where the value lies. Kransky 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't think it violates WP:NOT, and I can see some use for the lists. If this list had names, it would definitely violate the directory rule, but as is I think it's alright. --Daniel Olsen 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources have been provided for these. Content is little more than lists of embassies. What little useful information provided in these articles could be covered in sections or articles dedicated to each country's foreign relations. Rohirok 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Easy to solve your first issue - just add an external link to the website where I obtained this information (the foreign affairs ministeries). Otherwise I am happy to reinsert the lists into articles dedicated to each other's foreign relations, but I am not sure if other people would like this. Please go here and see as an example of what it might look like. If people are happy with this example I will migrate the lists over to the respective article Kransky 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than giving each country its own heading, try just making a simple list using asterisks (*) at the start of each line. This will conserve a lot of space. And yes, citing a reliable source for this information is imperitive. Rohirok 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reformatted the list Kransky had merged (linked above). It took a while, and still takes up a lot of space. I'm still not sure how useful this information is. I say give Kransky a chance to link the source, consoldiate the information into the relevant articles and without using the cumbersome and unnecessary headings, then delete the list of diplomatic missions articles. Rohirok 18:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please visit Foreign relations of Albania for an example based on Rohirok's suggestions. I think grouping missions by region and then country is the most logical taxonomy, and therefore it makes sense to use headings. Also I think it is still better to list one mission per line, otherwise it will look messy when a country has many consulates in another country. "Multilateral organisations" will be the heading for missions to such. And a link to the source where I picked up the information is included. Tell me if you are happy, let me migrate and modify the lists, and then delete to your hearts content. Just be aware that Wikipedia has similar lists for airline routes (e.g: KLM destinations) - on the basis of this precedence I did not expect something similar for diplomatic networks would violate the not-a-directory rule. Kransky 10:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think a list without headings is better, as shown here, since it compresses the information and doesn't clutter up the heading directory at the top of the page with links to sections that don't have a lot of information. With a multi-tiered list, the hierarchy is retained, but the space is much better used, and it's "easier on the eyes." Countries with only one embassy really ought to be listed in the same line as the city where the embasssy is hosted, since the great majority of the countries only have one embassy in them. As an exception, countries hosting more than one mission could have another embedded list so that each mission can be listed on its own line. Again, this is a space issue. I still don't see any links to Kransky's source. Rohirok 17:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My example Foreign relations of Albania has a link to the website where it is sourced. Look at the top. I stand by the one-mission-one-line rule because (a) it will be messy to list multiple missions in one country and (b) Rohirok's suggestion means the formatting will become inconsistent and unnecessarily complicated (do I embed if there are two or three or what number consulates? what if the names of the towns are short?). If you are still worried that this is not "easy on the eyes" look at the airline destinations categories where not only a one-destination-one-line format is used, but there are *five* levels of categorisation (continents, regions, countries, cities and individual airports). This format is used for 132 separate articles, and nobody is complaining about the formatting. On the strength of the precedence can we agree that my listing of missions in Foreign relations of Albania be used as a model for other countries. Kransky 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm withdrawing the nomination (which doesn't necessarily close the AFD). It looks like consensus is going for merge, with disagreement about the TOC and sectioning. I suspect that the articles will be broken out again anyway, but this will be even more likely if they have individual sectioning for each country, so we may as well keep them where they are now. My first choice is now to keep them, and second choice is to merge them as suggested above.--Kchase T 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I will take on board the recommendations for condensing the size of the list, cite the sources, and remove the lists from other articles. Thank you for your patience and suggestions, and I look forward to the removal of these articles from the AFD death list. Kransky 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Prophet (Macias)

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 42 hits (35 unique) on Google searching for "Red Prophet" "Pete Macias". -Elmer Clark 05:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, selfpublished book. NawlinWiki 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per all above - Not another self published book?!? How many more??? Martinp23 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SWML - Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language

Nominate - Seems to be put in commercially; title clashes horribly against MoS; if the process is valid outside that single company then it's probably still worth merging into Scrum (development) --Firien § 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Revised nomination Commercial link removed; utterly non-notable; 0 hits, no source, no verification. Possibly up for speedy. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Who, Your Mum?

• Comment - Not put in commercially, I added this and I know of at least two companies that are using the SWML. Perhaps it's worth expanding on what MoS actually is, generally I'm against the use of abrieviations without providing explanation of them. Suggest MoS is added as a new entry into Wikipedia. Maybe SWML is a UK based phenomenon. I understand that SWML.org is going to be coming soon detailing the language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
  • Which two companies? You only linked to one - that's why it looked like a commercial linkin. MoS is the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the guidelines on how the encyclopedia should be structured; I'm used to discussing with other editors who understand standard Wikipedia abbreviations, and perhaps need to reconsider where I use it. If SWML.org comes along detailing the language that'd be useful, especially if it wasn't directly linked to a commercial organisation. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you can help tidy it to conform to the MoS :-)
• Comment - Also I note that Microsoft have an entry on Wikipedia, perhaps this has been put in as a commercial entry and therefore should be removed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
  • A quick google for "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language" gets two hits. Both are Wikipedia, so no hits count. SWML returns SignWriting Markup Language as closest (yet still completely different), and refining with the term Scrum included brings it back to the same two hits. This makes the notability of this article very questionable and subject to deletion merely by Wikipedia's notability guidelines - this is not a recognised software development tool. A similar search for the word "Microsoft" returns 1.9 billion hits; even by removing all the hits with microsoft in the url we still end up with 1.3 billion. Microsoft's scale and fame, whether good or bad, is notable and is therefore suitable for a Wikipedia article. Even if it was started commercially there's enough editors here that that commercial tie would soon be shredded; what we end up with is an article that is fairly near to objective, not counting occasional vandalism to the page. If we relax your example to look at other, smaller companies, the general pattern is that it'll only be included if it's notable enough to be well-known on the web; googling is a handy depth tester for that. However I tend to assume good faith and so nominated this for deletion discussion rather than speedy admin deletion. I believe the article was written in good faith; so long as commercial ties can be left out that belief will remain. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I find your assertion that Google is the font of all knowledge and that wikipedia should merely be a subset of google results not only incorrect but also rather insulting. If Wikipedia is merely a subset of google results then this surely raised questions on the validity or necessity of wikipedia itself. Further your claim that this is not a recognised development tool is correct. Nothing is developed by the use of SWML, merely SWML enables it easier to understand what people are stating on white boards. I think what you mean is "I don't recognise this as a development tool". If this is the case would it not be possible that you do not know ALL the development tools currently in use, or are you claiming that between google and yourself you can form a full set of development tools. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
      • Don't twist my words. I stated clearly that google is used as a test of notability, not as a fount of knowledge. Wikipedia cannot and will not rely on it, because it is not a source of reliable facts; but it can be used to measure if a topic exists. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and so strives to keep its information true and verifiable. And your granting that this is not a recognised development tool makes it subject to deletion purely for its lack of notability - Wikipedia is not a place for original ideas, not for "spreading the word". Of course I don't know all the development tools in use; I'm not superhuman. No-one does. Neither did I claim that I can with or without google form a full set of development tools. I'm actually swayed by your arguments to change my vote from Merge to Delete; the information simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again you state that Google can be used to see if a topic exists. I question whether google has all possible topics in existence. Does it know for example about every tribe in the rainforest - probably not. Further google is only testable for notability for the population of the world who can access the internet AND are able to create web pages. It's a poor test or existence, as someone who tests things for a living I suggest that you revise your testing strategy. I have not twisted your words, perhaps they are just ambiguous. Which was my point on Development tools and the term development. It depends on ones definition of the term development. Under your definition then yes it probably is a development tool, under other definitions then possibly not. It's a shame you feel the need to state that wikipedia is not a place for original ideas, quite clearly this is true and it doesn't need to be spelt out. I do however think that it is exactly the place for "spreading the word", why else would one use an encyclopedia if not to find things out and spead knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
        • It is one of Wikipedia's rules that it is NOT a place for that. You told me to understand the topic; I'm telling you to understand the rules. Wikipedia also doesn't have an article about every tribe in the rainforest, but it also doesn't intend to. Same here. If you're also trying to suggest that part of the IT community is unable to access the internet or able to create web pages, then I'll just sit here and laugh. --Firien § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I suggest that certain parts of the military are not able to access the internet but are still involved in IT. Perhaps you should consider a few more posibilities. Incidentally I was not suggesting that. Please don't be hypocritcal and twist my words :-)
    • There are no specific commercial ties to this entry. SWML is planned to be released non-commercially as a Beta in the next few months for comment before version 1.0 is released by the end of the year. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
      • Thank you - that helps. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that this page is a stub for a more complete article about SWML (a language that I know and use) and I think that it should be kept for a while for the original author to have the opportunity to complete it. The language, as far as I know is not commercial nor linked to any particular company. Although it has been developed and mostly used in conjunction with the SCRUM methodology, it can be easily applied elsewhere as it only defines the whiteboard syntax, therefore it should have an article of its own. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs). (Article creator) 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again my point is that in the creation of the article it was linked to a particular company; as seen in this edit, the second edit to the article just after the article was created by the same person. That site doesn't even have a single result when you search it for the word 'markup', but it was tied to the article nonetheless. Perhaps it's just that link that needs removing, per WP:NOT; while there are admittedly a large number of guidelines on Wikipedia I'm sure as an IT professional you'll recognise the acronym RTFM. While anyone can edit, this isn't freeform; it's still an encyclopedia. Having now looked into the notability of SWLM and found it lacking, I personally feel that this article should either be deleted entirely for lack of notability, or merged back into the main scrum article; if it ever matures/develops (as perMartinp23's comment below) into something widely recognised and used in software development methodology then the section will become large enough to split off into a separate article. Your argument about being developed and used in conjunction with Scrum is weak since the title of the article is "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language". Again if it does ever become used, whether under a name not linked to scrum or not, it should be notable outside Wikipedia before an article is written here. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but agreed - merge amended below; FYI ControlChaos is Ken Schuaber's company for Scrum consulting and cirtification. It was included as an external reference for Scrum and not as part of SWML. As far as I'm aware Ken does not support SWML at this stage, and therefore SWML has no links to ControlChaos. I suggest that you understand the domain about which you are writing before raising further objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
    • If it's an external reference for Scrum, it should be in the article for Scrum, not in this one. Even there it would be questionable, because it's an external commercial link that doesn't improve the article. There are hundreds of companies that perform similar work, and I fully understand the domain even though I don't and don't need to know every single twist introduced by every single software company and IT consultancy and PM-training house in existence; I suggest both that you note what my objections were (originally "Commercial, possibly non-notable, badly written"; now without the commercial consideration since that's been clarified, but definitely non-notable. It doesn't matter at all whether Ken supports SWML, or who wrote it, or whether I know about it. It matters how many people know about it. Google was used as a test for this; no, it's not exhaustive, but with 0 hits outside wikipedia, unless the only place it's hosted is in some sites with a disallowing robots.txt, the concept remains marginal and unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Can you see this getting into Encyclopedia Brittanica? Perhaps in the future, when it becomes more widespread, but not now. I'll also paraphrase you and suggest that you understand the domain in which you are writing before raising further objections. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a freeform source for information. It is not intended to be the sum of all human knowledge, nor to document every single variation that will ever exist. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for it to be merged with the main scrum article. You state that because SWML is Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language it is part of a development process. This is dependent on your interpretation of the term development within the software arena. Does it mean cutting code, or does it mean anything to do with the delivery of software products. I draw your attention to the existence of development teams, management teams, testing teams within a software project. Clearly here development mean cutting code. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
    • I draw your attention to the level of the articles around software development currently in Wikipedia. Terms are at the level of Agile, SSADM, Feature Driven Development, DSDM, RUP, PRINCE2, Scrum, Critical Chain, RAD, SEI's CMM, XP. I'm sure that because of your familiarity with the field you'll recognise those; hopefully you'll also recognise their scale. Those are working at the level of lifecycle planning, team structure and management, project management, estimation, requirements specification, testing, collaboration tools, and modelling methods. A new method for clarifying how things are set out on a whiteboard? You think that compares? I understand software development, methodologies, development of those methodologies, best practises. I've read Brookes, Yourdon, Avison, Fitzgerald, Demarco, Lister; they set out software development pretty well. Sure, there's newer stuff; it's IT, everything's obsolete the next day. But until it becomes noteworthy it is not suitable here. That noteworthiness comes from the scale of recognition, or it comes from excelling in its field and being noted at this from a reputable source. It does not stretch to something invented by 4 people that is still in its infancy, however well developed the language itself might be. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please state the specific required scale of recognition for wikipedia. Given that you clearly are not knowledgable on SWML I don't think you should make such harsh and unfair derogatory comments about it. Incidentally you state best practices, perhaps you should read further what many in the field deem to be best practice. I follow the school of thought that there are no best practices, merely a set of good ones that one should choose from. Reading and citing a range of authors does not make you the authority of software development. Brookes - which one, who cares how many books you've read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
        • Again, RTFM. Because you don't seem to want to bother going through it, I'll point you at the right place. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". This is not. I'll also point you again at the page which you failed to read when I posted before: WP:NOT. I'll draw out the main points in case you're still too lazy: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Yes, this fits. It's structured - but it's still original. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." What harsh and derogatory comments? You think calling it small and unknown is derogatory? I'm calling it not notable in the context of Wikipedia within Wikipedia. And again, I didn't claim I was the authority of software development. You questioned that I had any knowledge of software development, so I replied. You can't argue that I don't know anything and then moan about it when I show I do. Neither did I claim that I knew anything on SWML; I suggest you read back on my comments and compare them to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. --Firien § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • speedy deletionThere's not need to be patronising! I am fine with this being deleted, there's no need to get eggy. I am not reading what you're linking to because some of us have propper jobs and don't spend our lives worrying about what is and what is not on a website. Am pleased though that two individuals actually felt it was noteworthy! SWML is actually a term in use, but I'm ok with you deleteing this on that basis that it's not that common. Interestingly a quick google search for Peter Beentje is pretty interesting. You yield 35200 results, maybe you should have an article in wikipedia, after all you're pretty noteworthy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs). (Article creator)
            • That's because you're doing it wrong. "Beentje" is a Dutch word, and will be found in combination with the name 'Peter' a lot. I'm sure that by stalking me you've found out some more about me; while parts of it are impressive to various people in various ways, it's not what would be considered noteworthy of an encyclopedia. There isn't an article about me, there won't be unless or until I do something that's recorded by a reputable source. Does it matter? Nope. --Firien § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
              • To Stalk - To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff or To move threateningly or menacingly. or To track prey or quarry. I hardly think that doing a google search on your nickname and then on a fairly obvious persons name associated denotes stalking. But if it gives you a thrill I guess you can think I am. Good grief, don't you have better things to do, find a job etc.
          • By the way (BTW) I'm 16! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs). (Article creator) -- ...so? --Firien § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) -- So... what's it like to bully someone! I was bullied at school as well and it's nice to see that people online are just the same. I bet you'd virtually bog flush me in a geeky online game if you could!

• Weak Keep — Give it time to mature/develop Martinp23 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language, and allow for organic expansion. --Daniel Olsen 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP If the term Cammel Toe is in here, this must surely stay!!! I've Therefore Changed my mind on this and SWML should definately stay. It's far more Noteworthy than Cammel Toes. If you don't know what one is I suggest you look it up. Although, you probably reviewed that entry already. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". I did a quick straw poll in my office and hardly anyone here has heard of it. Nearly as good a test as a google search!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs). (Article creator)

• Delete no hits on Google. user:wossi 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As previously stated if hits on google is the criteria that you are using to display noteworthiness, then I would question your measurement. You are merely turning Wikipedia into a google subset.
• Delete, something someone made up in work one day. Scrum is a real thing, this is a stupid in-joke, and as such original research and patently unverifiable. I really don't think the people voting keep have either looked at the article or tried to verify it in any way. - Bobet 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest you provide evidence that it is A. Stupid and B. A Joke
    • I believe it's an in-joke since the first version lists the people by name who supposedly invented it, and there's no indication that it's used anywhere else. And it's stupid since it's not funny (although I've no prejudice about stupid humor in general). - Bobet 11:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bobet. Ifnord 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of basic industrial topics

Redundant copy of Category:Industry. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - I've barely gotten started with it. It is intended to be a structured list and part of the "Basic topic lists" collection. It is targetting one of the gaps on Lists of basic topics. But how can I complete it and add structure if it gets nominated for deletion just moments after it is created? It's in the process of being constructed. Please remove this AfD. Thank you. --Nexus Seven 09:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Stuff like that should be prodded first. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Give it time to mature Martinp23 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, but I'll make a dab page at this title (Michael Stivic, Meathead (band), etc.).--SB | T 08:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meathead

Was proposed for deletion by 64.231.246.231 (talk • contribs), but moved straight to AFD since it wouldn't have survived there for long thanks to the flood of sockpuppets from last time. Original reason was:

Meathead is not known outside the Nine Inch Nails online fan community. The only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends at the Nine Inch Nails fan forum http://www.echoingthesound.org/ posted here to vouch for his continued relevance. Outside that limited sphere of online NIN fans, Meathead is unknown and irrelevant.

I second that nomination citing Wikipedia:Notability (people) issues and lack of references to 3rd party Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete is still my vote from last time, for the reasons above. But I give it 3 more hours before the meatpuppets attack again. Get ready with your {{spa}} and {{unsigned}} tags. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Michael Stivic. Forgot about that this time... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Mets501 (talk • contribs) protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meathead (2nd nomination) (due to anon vandalism in first AFD [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

• Delete - it has sources - such as forum posts, and the guy's own website! WilyD 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NIИcruft. I've been reading the Meathead Perspective for almost seven years, and it's pretty funny if you're a fan, but as a person he isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. -/- Warren 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article has undergone significant improvement. Non Notable fancruft is deleted because it attracts poorly written articles, and the article is certainly of a higher quality than a lot of articles on more "important" issues. The article has managed to attract serious editors (who are keeping the vandals well under control). We also aren't deleting the articles on other internet personalities just because most of the talk relating to them is (surprisingly) on the internet: Maddox (writer), Tucker Max, etc. Sure, they're more popular, but notability is not the same thing as popularity. GeorgeBills 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: But both Maddox and Tucker Max have written New York Times bestsellers. What has Meatpuppet done that is notable and verifiable outside of the Nine Inch Nails fan community? --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Urg, I didn't even know that (the published book thing). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that internet sources aren't automatically non-factual, and given that many of the articles here currently only contain internet sources, only using internet sources shouldn't be an automatic deletion criteria. Wikipedia:Reliable sources also notes that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and I think the inverse should be true: ordinary claims don't need peer reviewed papers for proof. There's nothing in the Meathead article that isn't believed by that articles editors, with reasonable although not indisputable evidence, to be true. There was an April Fools joke in the article previously, but it was removed and I think that shows that the articles editors are happy to remove non-factual material. Also, the main point of the article is that someone calling themself Meathead is writing a popular series of essays (etc). The actual site itself should be good enough for that reference surely? I guess my arguments are:

• The article is referenced above the standard of the majority of the articles here, and while those references are internet references, they are reliable for the fairly ordinary claims that they're covering.
• The number of fanboys / fangirls spamming the last AfD is regrettable, but the admin who reviewed that AfD discounted their opinion anyway, and popularity is hardly grounds for deletion. The nominations argument that the "only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends [...] posted here to vouch for his continued relevance" is thus irrelevant.
• The vandalism on the page is also regrettable, but it's being dealt with (the majority of it coming from one persistent IP vandal, on a one week ban last I saw), and frequent vandalism is also not a reason for deletion (or we'd be deleting Falun Dafa, President Bush, Israel, etc).
• Some of the arguments for deletion of NN articles clearly don't apply here: that they don't attract editors, that they clutter cats, that the article tends to be overly biased (the article makes no PoV judgements as far as I can see, but I'll go over it again to try and make sure).
• Wiki isn't paper, and so as far as I'm concerned, non-verifiability is the main argument for deleting NN pages. The article doesn't reference any scientific journals, but for some subjects, subjects which a reasonably large minority group of people are going to find interesting and informative, that isn't going to happen. GeorgeBills 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Third party sources include the NIN official website and the official fan club website, and as traffic statistics will tell you, visitors to his column are NOT limited to the (admittedly over-enthusiastic) denizens of echoingthesound.org. BotleySmith 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Botley, remember that those are not concidered reliable sources per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Not really notable enough Martinp23 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This comes from a NIN fan. I enjoy meathead's work, but he is not notable enough outside of NIN fandom to get a wikipedia entry. Do we really want every kid who satirizes their favorite band and their fans to get a wikipedia entry? Chilla 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as subject falls well short of WP:BIO criteria. Sources don't meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)