Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 23

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenzie Dalton

The article is fan-cruft, and is about the member who created it. Plus the person isn't notable. That is why I am nominating it for deletion. --andrew 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nonsense. Leuko 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A lot of the notability is supposed to come from a relation, but the article states she's a model. Unless that can be refuted I see no reason to delete. Just a good scrub and cleanup. Badly formatted, but not fancruft and even if it was, fancruft is not a reason for speedy deletion for whoever tried to re-tag it. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm confused. If there's an assertion to notability, then I'm just plain missing it. Sparsefarce 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are a lot of people waiting tables at diners in LA claiming they are actors/actresses, but this does not make them people worthy of wiki entries. We try not to take things at face value, and facts have to be verifiable and verified per WP:V. None of the cited, including being engaged to Chad Michael Murray and participating in a CosmoGirl! modeling contest confers notability per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I certainly concur in Mgm's assessment that the article, even in its earliest incaranations, was not speediable; the noting of a subject's working as a fashion model with a notable publication and of a subject's being engaged to a notable individual must surely be understood as a proper assertion of notability. I vacillate on the notability by familial relation question but here think Mgm to be quite right that Dalton qua fiancée of Chad Michael Murray is non-notable; I don't, though, think Dalton qua model to be notable per WP:BIO, although I think it to be eminently likely that further and more prominent modelling work (especially that for which sources might be found) would confer notability. In any event, it should be emphasized that, to my mind, the disposition of the question is not wholly clear, such that intimations of speediability are, IMHO, unfounded. Joe 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, good call! Mallanox 19:09, 27 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 per WP:SNOW. I don't think even Jeff would dispute this one... :o) Just zis Guy you know? 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which Backstreet Boy is Gay

Possibly the least notable internet meme ever. No sources, not even blogs. Probably self-promotion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I had it as a hoax at first glance, but it's actually out there. Still, not notable - Richfife 04:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't believe someone created this article this year. Someone e-mailed me this song so long ago that the Backstreet Boys were actually still big at that time. I'd totally forgotten it, and pretty much everyone else has, too. Fan-1967 05:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable internet meme, fails WP:V as the only things out there are the meme itself and its mirrors, and no one's written about it per WP:RS. And the title is a rhetorical question, right? --Kinu ^t/_c 05:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above --Paukrus 07:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've heard of the "Which Backstreet Boy is Gay" drinking game but never this meme. Google doesn't turn up many sources either. 205.157.110.11 08:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I've heard of the song and all, but seriously, it's own article. That seems a bit much. The least would be a brief, and I mean brief mention on the internet meme page.--andrew 09:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but I did think the song was funny at one time... --Alex ^{talk here} 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Good grief. StuffOfInterest 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I definitely saw it while it was going around, but it's not a big deal, and fails WP:V WilyD 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, even at its peak. --Wildnox 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:32, 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. Strong consensus that this fails WP:WEB. Nandesuka 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider (comic)

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]}}

This is a long nomination, but please, I ask you to read on as I would like some participation from the wider Wikipedia community. This comic was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) and was nominated for a second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) (2nd nomination) where it ended as a no consensus. I am nominating again because I feel that the outcome of the second discussion was erronomous. Although the second nomination had such great keep votes such as "I masturbated into a sock last night" and general ILIKEIT style comments, I really do not think that their arguments hold much weight. They claim that this webcomic, seen here is notable because it was nominated for the 2002 outstanding sci-fi Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. This however, is not a notable award, the WCCA's have more categories than the Oscars (really), and so many are nominated every year, it's meaningless. Just because it was nominated once for a web award with no ceremony (they just gather up votes in an online poll then post the results) doesn't mean that it's more notable/popular/better sourced than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Having one nomination puts it up with those big hitting websites such as Psychic Dyslexia Institute, Bikeeni 2000 and The Tenth Life of Pishio the Cat . This comic has no other reliable third party sources, has not achieved great popularity as seen by its Alexa rank and pretty much all the information is sourced from the website itself. We should not have slacker inclusion guidelines for webcomics over other web content. - Hahnchen 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominating this for a third time is a completely pointless waste of energy and time. Folks who vote to keep don't need "arguments that ... hold much weight"; you're the one making the affirmative attempt to delete it so it's you that has to convince everyone else. Xihr 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The last nomination ended up a no consensus with the one before that being to delete. I don't think it'll hurt bringing the article through another AFD, especially if it gets a wider participation. The last AFD was pretty close and the closing admin was asked for a closer look. - Hahnchen 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Folks that vote to keep don't need arguments"? Sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to reply to that without violating WP:NPA. Folks that vote to keep damn well need to explain why they believe the article meets Wikipedia policy. — Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Haelth, I think we can agree that the article is quite good. The subject itself seems to be the problem. I also think that the value of the very first nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) has been quite exagerated don't you agree? There were only five users interrested at that time and the article was nominated just 14 days ! after being created, it never had enough time to evolve yet. Flamarande 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? — Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well done article on a webcomic which seems notable to me (from reading the prior nominations). And I didn't masturbate into a sock last night! InvictaHOG 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Good article, it looks like a good comic, but can someone explain to me how this comic meets WP:WEB? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DejahThoris (talk • contribs).
• Comment - I don't think the case has been adequately made that the Alexa rankings for Outsider don't demonstrate a notable webcomic. I have not seen any guidelines that quantify what sort of traffic ranking qualifies as notable. Previous comparisons with traffic rankings for Penny Arcade and Megatokyo don't seem very appropriate; I don't know whether a webcomic must be among the four or five most popular in the world to be considered "notable", but in any event comparing the traffic numbers of a daily or thrice-weekly comic strip with those of a weekly (or less) long form comic doesn't seem to be a very good basis for judgment. An informal survey of long-form, weekly-or-less updated comics with current Wikipedia articles produced this general range of Alexa numbers:

Errant Story: 70,000

Flipside: 74,000

Demonology 101: 103,000

Alpha Shade: 116,000

ModernTales (anthology): 250,000

Outsider: 371,000

9th Elsewhere: 411,000

Girlamatic (anthology): 476,381

Polymer City Chronicles: 493,000

Lowbright/Derek Kirk Kim: 614,000

Return to Sender: 625,000

Nowhere Girl: 834,000

Leisure Town: 870,000

This list is by no means exhaustive. (As a disclaimer, I am the author of the comic in question.) - AriochIV 02:57 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have always maintained that the standards for webcomic inclusion have been incredibly lax, and that they seem to be treated through rose tinted spectacles in comparison to other websites. There is an absolute shedload of webcomics on my watchlist which have Alexa ranks like the ones you quote and should be deleted. Encyclopedia Dramatica had a rank of around 8000 I think, Final Fantasy Shrine has a rank in the top 10,000 also. They were both deleted. Barring the sci-fi web cartoonist's choice award nomination, there have been no reliable sources or professional third party reviews or critical commentary on your work. I cannot imagine any other set of websites outside of webcomics in which the claim that an Alexa rank of 370,000 makes it notable would be used as an argument for keep. The Alexa rank wasn't even the main point of this nomination. - Hahnchen 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have made no claim of any kind as to the notability of the comic, only questioned your criteria on the judgement of traffic rankings. I thank you for your clarification. - AriochIV 03:42 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the main point of the nomination but you sure had to use it, conselour. What rank would be acceptable? If you use it against it, there surely exist a rank which satisfies you. Flamarande 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - No reliable secondary sources of information regarding the notability of this. Doesn't meet WP:WEB at all. For what its worth, I would've closed the previous AFD as delete, due to complete lack of arguments based on WP policy/guidelines and instead stuff like "the comic clearly exists and has some history". I'm actually busting out the "strong" delete on this one, which I haven't done in awhile. Wickethewok 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I find the fact that the WP:WEB classifications as being incredibly short sighted and that such criteria will create false positives and false negatives all over the place if used as criteria for deletion in the particular case of webcomics. If a webcomic publishes their material in paperback form, and opens their own personal bookshop out of their garage, they immediately qualify as they have an outside source(their publisher). Why should a site suddenly be better because the owner decides to shell out money to publish? A webcomic is a peice of fiction, not fact, and I think after scrutinizing the INTENT of the rules in question, that this webcomic is sufficient to warrent a wiki article. I do agree that webcomics are a dime a dozen, but *any* award from any organization (whether web derived or not) therefore implies quality of work simply because winners had to compete against hundreds or thousands of similarly themed works. Just troll through the latest comic ranking sites like buzzcomics and see how many exist. But I ask you to think, go wiki some webcomics like inverloch, earthsong, no need for bushido, look at their pages, and think about why all of these shouldn't deserve to have a wiki page. If you think that they shouldn't, than why are ANY fictional works presented herein? I think the time has long passed that having a paperback published copy of your fictional work somehow makes the work more immortal. I'll finish up with some counterpoint aimed at Hahnchen. Reliable sources I quote : "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them." This is a work of fiction, the author's word is final, hence it is no different than the lord of the rings or any other published non-fiction work. Another point, because we are to consider this source just as we would if it were published in another medium, why are we even talking about alexa rankings as we certainly do not consider how many copies were printed, or how widly circulated or translated a particular book is. Addiitonally I would question your criteria for "well known" award, as I think it is very well known within the commuity it serves (i.e. those who read webcomics). The point of the rules is to keep fradulent works out, to keep facts close to reality etc. That is the spirit I see behind the rules being sited, and that is why I find that works such as webcomics break that mold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs).
  • Do you even know what a reliable source is? The difference between this webcomic and Lord of the Rings is that in one case, we are taking the author's word for every claim, and in the other case, there are thousands of other people who have intently scrutinised every claim, checked every fact, and published their own findings independently! A reliable source, whether online or offline is necessarily and inherently a secondary source, and that completely and utterly rules out any author whatsoever as a reliable source on their own work. If Shakespeare himself had a website about his plays, we would not be able to cite it as a source! How much less, then, can we have an article about a lesser author that doesn't cite adequate sources? — Haeleth Talk 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How is the "reliability" even in question, it is a work of FICTION the author is the sole person responsible for it. Are we going to eliminate Lucas's early Star Wars films because the commentary on it by people before the rereleases are now moot as he changed things around? I fail to see how external commentary makes a work of fiction any more or less reasonable as a wikipedia article.
• Strong Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, right? And it's the only encyclopedia that 'records' the Internet. This is information about a lasting place on the Internet. More, it's about a carefully, extensively and deliberatly crafted place on the Internet. I would love for, one day, to have Wikipedia have an entry for /every/ Webcomic; atleast enough to know what it is and some review quotations. Why? Because it's information. Usefull information

. Quite frankly, I think it's notable simple because it very deliberately exists (as can be seen in the effort of world and art creation), and has existed for a long enough time that I'm very certain it will continue to exist for a good long time. Summarize: Information is usefull; content has deliberatly existed and shows all signs that it will continue to do so. Narfanator 3:26 AM EST August 23 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.93.7 (talk • contribs).

• Delete: This is a signed "vote." The comic does not pass WEB. The presence of a Wikipedia article does not make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. This is a question about how likely it is that an educated but casual web user will have heard of this comic and need it explained to him or her. No outside references or external contexts. Geogre 12:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If the purpose were to explain things that casual web users will have heard of, explain to me why you bother to have a page for CVD? I highly doubt that anyone without a degree in materials engineering (or related fields) would care at all about such a specific materials processing method. I also put forth that such a specific subset of the industrially competent enough nations to actually have CVD technologies hardly qualifies as a casual web user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs).
• Strong delete per Geogre and Wickethewok. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of websites or comics, and as such synopses of webcomics - completely regardless of their popularity or "notability" - fall outside our scope, and should not be included. Comixpedia exists for a reason, folks. — Haeleth Talk 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that wikipedia should use external reasons such as "comixpedia exists for a 'reason'" as why even have wikipedia exist. There are encyclopedia, and countless volumes of books that contain the same information, and some would say more accurately. I'd say keep your arguments germane, I don't think the existance of external information sources for the same material is relevant, as such an argument nullifies all that wikipedia stands for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.189.3 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. This isn't a directory of comics. Not every comic deserves a page on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This kind of synopsis / treatment is outside the scope of wikipedia. Delete as per above and WEB --Amists 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources, no credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Let's try to be honest. The article by itself is fine, but the subject fails at WP:WEB which seems to be the main argument against it. WP:WEB is a notability criteria guideline, reading Wikipedia:Notability I found the following: "There is no official policy on notability". This seems to be a little akward to me. If there is no official notabilty policy how can you use it as your main argument for the deletion of this article? Flamarande 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It at least earned some minor award. Leuko 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just a clarification, it didn't actually win any minor award, but was nominated for one, the WCCA online poll. - Hahnchen 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable comic. WP standards of encyclopedic notability are ill-defined at best, and at worst are meaninglessly applied at random. RedPenguin 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually there are well-defined standards at WP:WEB. These are objective standards that apply to all website related articles, including web comics. Wickethewok 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A notable comic. Bibliomaniac15 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This webcomic does not satisify WP:WEB, which is the guidelines many editors here agree on a notability for websites. That means, somewhere in the article must provide citations to reliable sources which have already discussed and verified this webcomic. It could be a traditional media outlet, or a well known web award, or other standards as detailed in WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of reliable sources and per excellent argument by danntm. Zunaid 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If any webcomic is allowed to be showed on the wikipedia then there is no reason that Outsider or any other webcomic should not be showed as well. 82.48.77.128 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per danntm, unfortunately. The comic itself is very pretty, and the article is well written. However, no published sources have written about it. Bring it back when it's famous. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete echoing the various points made above. Eusebeus 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being nominated for an obscure award (and not winning) does not make something notable. Fails WP:WEB. Kafziel 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB per Wickthewok. Sandstein 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB. Bring it back when there's indpendent coverage of it as per AnonEMouse. Fairsing 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per danntm: WP:WEB might be a guideline but WP:V is policy. Until someone who might be considered a reliable source writes about this, it has no place on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how WP:V has any application to a work of fiction, particularly one which exists in its entirety on the web page in question. I don't think the issue is about the accuracy of the information in the article. Ariochiv 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Didn't you notice that the same person nominated this article for deletion 3 separate times? This WP:WEB argument appeared only in this nomination, and I am even unsure if it is truly legit: There is no official policy on notability (somehow noone is willing to explain it above). Flamarande 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seriously, I thought the whole point of wikipedia was that if you want to know something, you go to wikipedia to get infomation on it. If some guy hears about a webcomic called Outsider but is worried it might be about Furry Satanic Porn, shouldn't he be able to just read the wikipedia article to learn about it? Heck, a wikipedia article could lead to it growing in popularity.--65.9.140.240 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a very common misconception, but no - that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is meant to collect information from secondary sources about notable topics. There are standards for inclusion as well as standards for sources. If a subject isn't notable, it's not Wikipedia's job to try to make it notable. Kafziel 00:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has survived two AfDs, that should be reason enough. There are proper channels to go down to overturn a delete decision. Re-AfDing isn't it. Abstain I stand corrected. Mallanox 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it didn't. The consensus of the first one was to delete, and the second one was no consensus. There has never been a consensus to keep this. That's all beside the point anyway, since the results of previous AfDs don't have any bearing on the previous one as long as it was nominated in good faith. More than a month has passed since the last one closed; there's nothing wrong with re-nominating it now. Kafziel 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In the spirit of fairness please notice that the "mighty" consensus of the first nomination was achieved with 5 users, two deletes, one abstained, and the other two users didn't vote at all. Flamarande 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Who said "mighty"? I just said that there has never been a consensus to keep this article, so this discussion is valid and the nomination was made in good faith. I didn't mean that this should be deleted because of past votes any more than it should be kept because of past votes. Past results shouldn't be used as footing for current debates; an AfD should be based on the article, not the article's history. Kafziel 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Also, per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This article is not supported by reputable third-party sources, nor does it assert any historical significance for its topic, therefore it does not meet our official content policies. -- Dragonfiend 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. The subject of the article is a webcomic. If someone links the statements of the article to the proper page of the comic will that be considered a proper source? Flamarande 23:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the problem with the folks here who try to use WP:V on AfD. Verifiability, while an official policy, doesn't really matter in this case. We all know the comic exists. The question is whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion, the standards for which are only guidelines. This discussion is intended to decide its notability, not its verifiability. The information is obviously verifiable, but if consensus holds that the subject is non-notable then it's pointless to add sources. Kafziel 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In response to Flamarande, no, linking to the website will not satisfy our content policies. First, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but a website is not a third-party source for an encyclopedia article about itself. Second, WP:NOT requires website articles contain info on "achievements, impact or historical significance," not simply descriptions of the website. Anything that is actually an achievement or of historical significance will be covered by third-party sources. To Kafziel, I'll point out that that this article is not "obviously verifiable" in the sense of our Verifiability policy. That is, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Nothing in this article has been published by a reliable and reputable source. -- Dragonfiend 01:52, 28 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bukalders

A genealogy entry with the barest of assertions of notability, if any. I was tempted to speedy, but decided to prod instead. Prod was removed by original author who has not edited since. Google does not provide additional insight on potentially famous Bukalderses. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:Vanity violation. This one's a no brainer. - Thorne N. Melcher 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Probably could be speedied as vanity. InvictaHOG 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per InvictaHOG. Danny Lilithborne 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, WP:VAIN --- Deville (Talk) 01:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:51, 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 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Hatter Day

This is a made-up holiday, without notability. Google results turn up mirror sites and personal web pages. It's certainly not an official holiday anywhere I could find. The sources used in the article are from personal home pages - not the type of sources that satisfy WP:V. Given that this is an encyclopedia, I don't think it should be used to promote nonsense. Rklawton 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not for things made up in school one day. If any of the links here were to any sort of calendar, and in fact to anything other than blog posts, that would be a different story. --- Deville (Talk) 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "the holiday reportedly gained some local recognition" - nice use of passive voice to avoid having to cite a source. NawlinWiki 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- with no prejudice to recreate if a couple "real" papers actually cover the event coming up here in October. 205.157.110.11 08:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NFT ST47 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Wildnox 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if they are quite clever and have been around for a bit, unless they are mentioned in multiple reliable sources, which as far as I can tell this is not. Not an open and shut WP:NFT but not formally verifiable as far as I can tell either. Just zis Guy you know? 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• We should be careful it's not something like Pi Celebration Day. DebRA's Mad Hatter Day seems unrelated but if it's annually celebrated probably more notable than the one we have listed.- Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • True. One thing I checked was the "Fictional Holidays" category under which this article had been categorized. Most of the articles tagged with that category were just that - holidays taken from works of fiction. All (or most) of the works of fiction were notable, and the holidays contained therein were verifiable. I tagged one or two other made-up holidays that weren't part of fictions for deletion just as I did this one. Rklawton 23:46, 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 all. — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:30, 27 August 2006}

[edit] Todd Albertson

There are a lot of claims made about this person. Filmmaker: well, a 10 minute short from an LA film festival, a documentary also from a film festival, and a full-length movie, starring two people which have never stared in any other movie. Author His book The Gods of Business is apparently unpublished; it is not listed at Amazon, B&N, Books in Print, or the Library of Congress. Founder of the charity God Farm. Except that the God Farm web site says it isn't up and running yet. All the references are to sites he owns or to anonymous glowing reviews at IMDB. None of the other claims can be backed up by reliable sources. Great self-promotion, not so great for this encyclopedia.

Also nominating:

• The Gods of Business Has a very pretty web site, but is not listed in Amazon, Borders, Books in Print, or the Library of Congress. Wishful thinking at best; wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
• The proverb A 10-minute film by Todd Albertson (see above). No coverage in Lexis/Nexis entertainment reporting. Not for sale anywhere. For sale at Amazon as a self-published DVD. ( Possibly shown at one film festival. Only references are the film's web site and IMDB. Like all Todd's projects, tagged with a false {{wikiquote}} tag. Like all Todd's projects, a very pretty article with infoboxes and everything. Non-notable and not verifiable.
• Soliloquy movie No coverage in Lexis/Nexis entertainment reporting. Not for sale anywhere. Stars two people who have never been in any other film. Possibly shown at one film festival. Only references are the film's web site and IMDB.
• Sidewalk soldiers A documentary produced, written and directed by Todd. No coverage in Lexis/Nexis entertainment reporting. Not for sale anywhere. Possibly shown at one film festival. Only references are the film's web site and IMDB.

Note that several speedy and prod tags have been removed by different redlinked users and/or IP addresses, so expect someone to be watching out for Todd. All in all, a very sophisticated walled garden. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all the articles. I'm not voting in each one; you could have just done one AfD for the whole kit and kaboodle, seeing as they all tie into this one guy. Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never done that before. I'll try to fix it up. Sometimes multiple noms get dinged though. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I combined them. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I say delete them all. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, the auxiliary pages (the book and the movies) should be deleted. I could imagine that someone would make a case that Albertson could have a very short article about him which mentions these works, but I don't see it passing the bar for WP:BIO. As nom says, this guy is a great self-promoter, but that's all. Again, delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Aspiring filmmaker and author who clearly hasn't yet made it in either. Fan-1967 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete this and the linked articles. Looks like he wrote the entire thing himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outside Center (talk • contribs).
• Delete all per nom. Thatcher definitely did his research. -- Kicking222 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Added comment The Albertson main page lists a dozen foreign-language WPs with Todd Albertson articles; none actually do. Whether this was just to make his page look even fancier, or whether someone actually had the intention of making these articles, remains to be seen. -- Kicking222 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom ST47 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete each as the article bears the burden of proof. A very young person with ambitions is likely to promote himself, and we should not be included in those plans. It's awful that we have to prove conclusively that there is no evidence for the subjects, but the one thing to add is that IMDB has never heard of the film maker, either. Geogre 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Albertson (weakly) as fundamentally unverifiable other than from his own website. He gets 250 unique Googles, which is about the same as I get and is rather implausible given the CV presented in the article. Strong delete of the balance, which give every appearance of vanispamcruftisement. The involvement of an interlocking circle of single purpose accounts makes this pretty much a certainty. Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Leuko 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• What a bunch of...!$!@# are the comments of the estemed contributors to this thrred. I don't know this guy, but I did design his book cover and I delt with the publisher and the webmaster not him. I don't care whether you delete him or not and he probabaly doesn't either since wikipedia is so slanted and unreliable anyway. I just looked at these comments and am disgusted with the entire process. You guys make the Bush Administration dealing with Hurricane Katrina seem smart! But as thatcher would say "so expect someone to be watching out for Todd." There is no way Albertson wrote his own bio, he didn't even want his picture or bio on the book cover. If he wrote his bio, why wouldn't he have the same stuff on his websites or link to wikipediua? It doesn't make sense to me as he hardly says anything about himself on his sites. Someone who wrote their own bio would have a link and say something like "Wikipedia now recognizes my expertise. Go to this link to see for yourself." Check your facts before you say crap about somebody. I hope you end up getting sued for defamation. For example, his website clearly says that his book isn't published until the Fall and you can't pre-order until October, thus it wouldn't be listed for sale yet nor would it be in the LOC. DA! Someone said that his 10 minute film isn't for sale and there is a link to on his website that takes you amazon. Someone else said only imdB verifies his films. imdb is far more difficult to to get into than wikipedia as they check stuff ahead of time and don't allow annonymous contributors. Instead of talking all this crap and acting like idiots, why don't you contact him, there's a link on his website, and ask him. You don't verify any information submitted to wikipedia except when you think someone is self-promoting. What if an ex-wife or disgruntled employee or stalker wrote this stuff. What if it is 100% accurate and verifable? Grow up and act like adults. If you're going to fact check, then be professional about it, and don't sling mud. Freakin idiots! miss_pat 20:6, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In my nomination I did not link to the various relevant policies. Perhaps you would be interested in Verifiability, Notability, Biography and Reliable sources. Also what Wikipedia is not. For example, wikipedia generally does not have articles on things that do not exist. If and when the book is published, and if it otherwise meets the notability requirements for books, the article can be rewritten. Movies with very little audience and exposure generally do not meet notability guidelines. In the case of Todd himself, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and the importance of individuals must be independently verifiable (such as through newspaper articles about his achievements). Whether the article was written by an ex-wife and said bad things or written by himself and said good things, it would be a candidate for deletion because it can not be independently verified. On final comment, funny thing about his personal IMDB profile, it says it was submitted by "anonymous." Thatcher131 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

cWe're not deleting Todd (just discussing deletion of the article about him) or slinging mud. To be listed, we need someone other than Todd, a reliable third party source to confirm these things he says he's done actually exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. This guy really worked hard on all these pages. Delete 'em all Sparsefarce 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Them All and Response to Thatcher131!I don't know how to respond in-the same thread as Thatcher131, so I am posing this here. I apologize, but I've never done this before and don't have the time to learn a new markup language.

I apologize if I came across as a jerk earlier, but some of the comments didn't and still don't sound professional or objective, but rahter feel like a bunch of bullies ganging-up on someone and I find that unfair or plain old wrong. Nonetheless, I think all of these listings should be deleted too.

My reasons are differen't than Thatcher131's reasons. When I read these articles I don't find them flattering to Albertson at all. Nor do I think they are accurate. I do believe his websites are accurate and they don't say 99% of this stuff. So they should be deleted because no data is far better than bad data.

I also believe these articles should be deleted because I don't think the fact checkers are objective and probably not qualified to fact check. Most of these comments are nasty personal attacks. For example, he's a wannabe or this guy really worked hard on creating the phony websites. Again, they were not written objectively by professionals and I question the competency and motives of the contributor.

For example after I correccted Thatcher131 on a few of his obvious mistakes, he changed the verbage to read that his DVD was self-published. His Proverb was publised by CustomFlix. They are same people who publish 60 Minutes, A&E, NBC among lots of other "big boys." The company is owned by amazon and very legitimate. Saying "self published" makes it sound like he is shipping VHS copies out of his garage. Then Thatcher131 says, in a "I told you so" tone, that his imdb biography is written by anonymous. WOW!!!!! 95% of imdb's bios are written by anonymous or just signed with someone's email address. You have to be a major A lister to have a big name attached to your bio. For example, Jim Belushi's bio is written by anonymous. Go to imdb and actually do some research and check this out instead of just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Here's the point, I'm not a film expert, I'm just a graphics designer and I know this. Even a half way smart person who has done anything at all in the "industry" knows this. Thatcher131 and I suspect most people claiming to be experts here don't know this because they're not experts, they're not even smart, they're wannabes. If they were experts, they'd be doing this for a living not living out some sort of fantasy by self-publishing on a free encylopedia.

Just so there is no confussion, I think all this articles should be deleted as well. And I also think that if wikipedia ever hopes to be taken seriously, you need to have some serious people running it. There are other models like dmoz that lets the average joe edit, but they do so under the supervision of qualified editors. This whole thread illustrates this perfectly in my mind.

Just my two cents. Have a nice day!

miss_pat 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — and delete the rest of the listings per nom. NN Dionyseus 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. I do not consider that Albertson nor his movies and book meet inclusion criteria. Sure, someone cared enough to put in all the effort in creating the pages to ensure inclusion on wikipedia (thus answers.com, shortopedia.com), and spamming the internet. In most of these cases, the information has been copied verbatim from one site to the next. Except that the wiki entry seems the most complete, including details about how he earned money by being a hacker, suggesting it could only have been autobiographical, as no independent sources can be found WP:V. His websites toddalbertson.com,1, thegodsofbusiness.com2, theproverbmovie.com3, none of which are linked to anything, but score Ghits when searching for "Todd Albertson". I personally don't consider imdb entries necessarily as criteria for judging notability. Even if there's an entry at imdb, editors need to check qualitatively whether the global achievements of the subject meet wiki's criteria by looking for other corroborating sources. Wikipedia will only be unreliable if people continue to post nonsense, spam and entries of non-notable people or organisations and if facts are not correctly checked. Ohconfucius 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'DELETE IT ALL My name is Todd Albertson and I am the subject of this discussion. If there are any doubts as to my identity, I created this account and verified it using an email address at my domain toddalbertson.com.

I was not aware that there was a Wikipedia article about me, let alone 5 of them until “Miss_Pat” brought this matter to my attention a few hours ago. I have neither written nor commissioned nor asked nor approved nor authorized anyone to create, modify, or edit the articles entitled Todd Albertson, The Gods of Business, Soliloquy movie, The Proverb movie, and/or Sidewalk Soldiers. Had I created these articles, they would have been far more polished and professional in appearance and content than they are now.

Some of the information in these articles is correct and verifiable. That information appears to be directly stolen from my websites verbatim in violation of US and International copyright laws. The rest of the information is completely erroneous and/or taken out of context and is malicious and damaging. Therefore I have already contacted Wikipedia's copyright violation department and asked this information be removed immediately because of the copyright infringement. Additionally, I have contacted the Wikipedia info team and asked them to remove the libelous portions of these article, i.e. - the remainder of garbage.

I have no desire to be listed in Wikipedia. To be listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I am not, is an honor. I am not of the opinion that being listed in Wikipedia is any sort of "badge of honor”. It is more on the order of being mentioned on someone’s MySpace blog.

Moreover, I am outraged at how easy it is to add and create erroneous and libelous information without someone verifying it first. To put the burden on an individual to find out that this erroneous information exists is not the correct way a professional organization should conduct business. Some of these articles are over a year old and went unnoticed. There are some very serious and alarming errors in the Wikipedia editing process.Toddalbertson 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are examples of subjects who do not wish, for whatever reason, to have a wiki article on them. So the issue is not whether the subject approves of their bio or whether they want to be listed. It is a question of, amongst other things, the subjects' notability, and verifiability of the information on the subject. Ohconfucius 05:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nominator. RFerreira 08:34, 27 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 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everlasting Wanderers

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]}}

This Ragnarok Online fancomic can be seen here. The Alexa rank is wholely unimpressive at 800,000 and looking at the Googles for "everlasting wanderers seems to show more hits for a Ragnarok Online mp3 or soundtrack of some sort then for the webcomic. Also note that Google shows a lack of third party sources, however there are some foreign language links which I couldn't check out. - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete~!!!!-Its a good comic to me so far...and probably a lot of other people! >_< Why delete it if just for fun??? Or just for apathetic boredom? There's not that many hosting sites that display comics like Spinny's ;_; It would be really disappointing to see it disappear~after all the hard work Spinny did! Some of my friends saw Spinny's work and was really surprised. They don't know that much people that could draw that good and actually post it online for everyone to see and enjoy. Everlasting Wanderers deserves a wiki because its been a comic since 2 years ago. Ok, that didn't make much sense...but this comic was created by a very hardworking person, Spinny. A wonderful artist who posts comics online so everyone could read it. And now there's a wiki for Everlasting Wanderers. Why are people opposing it? Just because it isn't in the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that it has to have something to do with world views, etc. Everyone has their own opinions from what they see in daily life. Hopefully some people understand what I'm trying to say. >w<" xoxo Chibi =] 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete- Using Alexa as a gauge to rank webcomics is not an accurate gauge. Many comic hosting sites, such as Comic Genesis and Smack Jeeves get blanket Alexa rankings for the domain itself, while their individual comics may not necessarily receive the listed high traffic. Furthermore, while there may be only 95,000 google hits for Everlasting Wanderers, the top hits are obviously the fancomic and related information. Fans of Everlasting Wanderers also know it goes by the shortened name "Everwander, which net a few thousand more hits that are almost entirely dedicated to Everlasting Wanderers. If you utilize only Google hits and Alexa rankings, The Lounge piggybacks from Comicgenesis.com's Alexa ranking, and obviously does not share the majority of google hits from the rather generic title, yet it (and more like it) would be allowed to maintain a wikipedia entry. If you mark Everlasting Wanderers for deletion based on these two criteria, you are being unfair and discriminatory, simply because there are many other webcomics in the same situation, but happen to be hosted on the correct domain to provide an aggregate Alexa rating. If Wikipedia is going to crack down because of the WP:WEB requirements, that's fine. However, if Wikipedia does so, it should affect *all* offenders, and not just this one. Hoorayforicecream 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete- This article is not damaging anyone. The author seems happy to have this article here. Your point to delete this are... weak. There're another fancomics here, so... why delete this? - Katsurina Hinagami 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete- I feel that the argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very weak one. Unless it can be proven that this page violates any of Wikipedia's rules, or that it can be treated differently from the hundreds of other webcomic pages currently on Wikipedia, this page should not be deleted. - Winter04 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The argument to delete this page, based on the premise that the subject does not have many hits on Google, is a very strong one. As this is Internet-based content, a lack of Google hits or a low Alexa rank shows that there may not be enough interest in the webcomic for external independent sources to write about it. Wikipedia requires all information in articles to be verifiable from external reliable sources. Unless it can be proven that this webcomic has been mentioned in multiple such reliable sources, this page should be deleted. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising for a non-encyclopedic topic. Geogre 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hahnchen and Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't fulfill webcomic guidelines from WP:WEB. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- I would like to point that the format for this page is similar to how almost every other webcomic page is built, so I fail to see how this can be considered "non-encyclopedic content". Also, the page is not forcing anybody to read the comic or telling readers that it is the best comic in the universe. It's simply there for people who want to read up on it. Winter04 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- the comic's title was based off of the game's soundtrack so i don't find it suprising that the soundtrack would have a majority of the google hits. but the fact that the comic itself is at the top of the results should count for something69.109.114.249 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 20:48 23 august 2006 (pst)
• Comment- I always thought of wikipedia as an online encyclopedic source where you could find *anything* you were interested in learning about (within legal reasons). Soleras 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete As others have said it's doing no harm and the reasons for deleting it seem fillwed with technicalities, inconsistencies and lack significant knowledge. If you don't like it, don't read it - but don't ruin what is a good resource for others who want to read about this comic. Additionally, I feel Soleras has made a very useful point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.101.104 (talk • contribs).
• Comment ok, since when did webcomic follow strict restrictions, or have certain guideline that made them a webcomic? you people who try to make everything perfect, saying that this comic does not meet the guideline, or does not have much google hits or what not, ask a question to yourself, who are YOU to judge eh? are you perfect? are you SOOO smart that you must delete this small piece of work that few of the people enjoy as entertainment and as simple pleasure? And this about how this page is a non-encyclopedic? the page is providing information, isn't that enough? just providing information. As long as this comic is legal, it has every right to be on wiki just like the other pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.79.198 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nom. The article itself outlines no sign of notability. Anyone can create a webcomic...it doesn't mean anyone deserves an encyclopedia entry about it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd also like to note that Hoorayforicecream's comments about pages like The Lounge need to be taken into heavy consideration. If we're going to nitpick the details, then we must nitpick the double standards. Soleras 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you do any research on the List of webcomics, you'll see a large number of comics listed that not only have extremely low Alexa ratings (over 2 million), but also fall under the same criteria. Furthermore, some webcomics can maintain a wiki entry simply by having met the WP:WEB standards at some point in the past, but have since stopped updating. Some have even maintained their wikipedia entries (such as Acid Reflux (webcomic))) for over a year. Acid Reflux was added to Wikipedia 3 years *after* it had stopped updating, and has not met any of the requirements for WP:WEB. Everlasting Wanderers' entry has existed less than three months, yet WP moves to strike it down now? That seems not only unduly harsh, but discriminatory. Hoorayforicecream 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Nitpick? you people are going to nitpick on a webcomic? what kind of lives do you people have?!? and this webcomic deserves a wiki page as much as the other pages. If you people have any sense of pity, or guilt, you will leave this wiki page alone. If not, then our society is definitly heading the wrong way.
• Comment If this is meant to satisfy the WP:WEB requirements for Notability, would there really be any difference in Notability if the author had posted this comic on Comic Genesis instead? That should satisfy the #3 requirement for Web Notability, despite nothing really changing. 66.77.144.8 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Reply - This is just a reply to some of the comments raised. Comic Genesis does not imply notability, in fact, I do searches on wikipedia on for Comic Genesis domains to flag them for deletion. Having it on Comic Gen is just like having it on Geocities, absolutely meaningless. The reason there are a a literal shitload of entirely unnotable webcomics on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should keep them. My watchlist has around 70 webcomics, all which should be deleted, but I just haven't got round to them yet and very few others seem to nominate webcomics. I mean, here's just a small selection of the webcomic tripe on Wikipedia, Corner Pocket, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear, Insert Funn13 Here. By all means nominate them for deletion, they need it. - Hahnchen 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Reply - Hahnchen, are you the one who determines what is notable and what is not? Did you create requirement #3 on the WP:WEB? Comic Genesis does exactly what Requirement #3 states. It provides an independent third party online publishing site for web works. Your opinion may be that Everlasting Wanderers, Killer Robots from Space, Friend Bear and whatever other comics are not notable and should therefore be purged from Wikipedia, but that is it. It is your opinion. The rules that Wikipedia have put forth regarding notability do not agree with you. Rather than mark entries for deletion that clearly meet the existing notability requirements, perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying to get the notability requirements themselves changed. Obviously, it is in need of amendment. But not only is it stupid to continue attempting to delete the Everlasting Wanderers entry by spitting in the face of the very rules you claim to be deleting them for, it is hypocritical. Hoorayforicecream 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a difference between "being distributed" and being hosted on free web space. Criteria 3 on WP:WEB refers to cases like Little Gamers which is distributed by Custom PC magazine (as well as others). Some take this criteria to refer to all "keenspot" comics to be notable, although I myself to not subscribe to that school of thought. - Hahnchen 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Once again, this is your opinion. You may not think that something distributed or published by Comic Genesis is notable. You're entitled to your opinion. However, you do not speak directly for wikipedia. You are not the rule-maker. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's rules, you are enforcing your own interpretation of the rules, which may or may not be correct. Comic Genesis promotes the comics it hosts. It provides link exchanges and advertisements on a scale that the majority of free web hosting does not. These are all services that free web hosting lacks. Do I think the rule is wrong in this case? Sure. However, I would go about trying to fix things by changing the rule rather than enforce my own viewpoint on WP entries that may or may not conform to my own interpretation of the rules. As an individual user, you can state and pontificate, but you do not speak for everyone, especially when you are going against the rules as written. Read it yourself. "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.". Well known. Independent. Online Publisher. Yes, comic genesis falls under all of those terms. If you disagree, then change the rule.Hoorayforicecream 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you read Note #7 of Criteria 3 on WP:WEB, which states that "although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Since Comic Genesis is similar to both Geocities and Newgrounds in that anyone with a webcomic can be hosted on Comic Genesis, being hosted on Comic Genesis is considered trivial and thus does not satisfy Criteria 3. Also, Hahnchen doesn't seem to be enforcing anything (he isn't an admin so it isn't possible for him to), he is only offering his opinions to this debate, similar to what you have been doing.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, non-notable webcomic. Large amounts of sockpuppets don't really help the situation.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:15, 26 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 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey Zombie

Hockey Zombie is another webcomic for which there aren't any reliable third party sources, because this webcomic, found here is utterly unnotable. "Hockey Zombie" only gets 60 Google hits and fails to break the 100,000 mark on Alexa. Although the Xbox Street Fighter cartoon on the front page is pretty funny. - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete E.Honda owns online gaming anyway. Danny Lilithborne 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. C56C 02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Wildnox 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Richman271^talk/_con 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear failure of WP:WEB. Just zis Guy you know? 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Utterly unnotable?

Funny, since someone took the trouble of making a note of it.

Seriously, you should read what you type before you submit it for other people to read.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project DCK

Flash cartoon series with absolutely no claim to notability, seen here. Reliable sources? - Hahnchen 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ad C56C 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, 248 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The article makes no claim for notability and could be an A7 CSD therefore, but there is bulk in the article. There are no indications that this is a visited flash cartoon and/or that non-fans are seeking information on it. Geogre 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Almost an A7, but no rush. Just zis Guy you know? 18:56, 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 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borganism

Non-notable, bordering on OR and neologism. Ironically, it has the move to Wiktionary template on it. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, how totally unlike anything I've seen on Star Trek. --Xrblsnggt 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gazpacho 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is OR and neologism as per nom --- Deville (Talk) 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. C56C 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD GC1 ST47 11:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as protologism, and do not transwiki as there is no indication of usage. Geogre 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete protologism Just zis Guy you know? 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable protologism. It's not patent nonsense, so it's not a speedy candidate. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Blood red sandman 13:12, 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 delete, consensus is clear even now. Just zis Guy you know? 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Truck (game)

Non-notable counter to the heavily-debated "The Game" silliness. Just created this summer, as this article admits. WarpstarRider 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Certainly fails WP:V.CindyLooWho 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; subject is non-notable. Wikipedia is not for things you make up with your friends. ~ PseudoSudo 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Huh? --Xrblsnggt 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Needs a better source than "is named after a song". --McGeddon 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, this article makes no claim for notability whatsoever. This was certainly made up in school one day. --- Deville (Talk) 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - WP:NFT Timrem 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but long live the game! --Liface 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable "game". From what I can understand, this is the same as "the Game", but with the word "lose" replaced with "win". JIP | Talk 06:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not a CSD candidate - WP:NOT is explicitly not a criteria for speedy deletion. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• They're using WP:NFT, not WP:NOT ST47 11:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • WP:NFT is a subset of WP:NOT. ._O Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NFT ST47 11:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, any article about the church fathers is clearly notable... wait, that's a typo? Oh well, delete per the above arguments then. — Haeleth Talk 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete someone has apparently mistaken us for Uncyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deletenn and I just lost the damn Game.Dev920 20:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  Big truck! ~ PseudoSudo 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and rewrite the speedy deletion criteria to prevent this sort of complete and utter shit ever disgracing the 'Pedia again. Honestly, anyone with half a brain cell (that'd be the average player of The Game, then) can see that this is a pointless ripoff of another highly contentious article, only with even less sources. Is there scope for a whole article to be considered a piece of vandalism? Kinitawowi 23:58, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onion diagram

Borderline nonsense TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's built into Microsoft Visio and has a lot of google hits for nonsense. Gazpacho 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you be bold and state that in the article? It surely does not say that. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It does now. I didn't create the article, BTW. Gazpacho
• Keep In the insurance industry you'll see your fair share of Onion diagrams. The articles needs a hell of a lot of work though. 205.157.110.11 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ST47 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep guiltyspark 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Richman271^talk/_con 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep valid stub. Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - an illustration of it would be useful.Seaphoto 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keepper above Dev920 20:32, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Santa

NN Fox TV special, likely isn't worthy for inclusion in WP TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep television special on a major, notable network; keeping it is not unlike keeping an episode that ran on the same network, except this is of some independent notability whereas the episode is a subarticle of The Simpsons. If Clay Aiken, Raven-Symone, Hilary Duff, and Tony Hawk were involved, that also speaks to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep definately notable ST47 11:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but it's an orphan/dead-end article, so whoever wrote it did a drop & run. It's of no actual worth, unless someone searches specifically for that specific title. The TV fans and Christmas special fans should get to work. Geogre 12:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CanadaianCaesar --Richman271^talk/_con 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on participation of significant pop culture personalities. AnnieHall 23:42, 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 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Throne (webcomic)

Non-notable webcomic that lacks verifiability and reliable sources. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Like many other webcomics on Wikipedia, this is not notable. I've nominated quite a few today (look above), but there's still many nn-s left on List of webcomics and lurking in the categories. - Hahnchen 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Some clean up needed, but I can see no grounds for removal. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable webcomic that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB, and no reliable sources cited making this formally unverifiable. Wikipedia is not comixpedia. Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JzG; in reply to Falcorian, this doesn't need cleanup, it needs to demonstrate notability per WP:WEB (third party reliable sources) and verifiability per WP:V (reliable sources again). If nobody else has written about this, and a webforum wouldn't count, then we don't either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:45, 26 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 material into WWSB and recast this as a Redirct. Herostratus 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Almanac

Not notable local television programme. Displaced Brit 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Direct merge/redirect into WWSB. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge I would have to agree that this program isn't notable, just as a similar sounding program on WABC-TV called Like It Is would be despite being in DMA 1 and being on air longer. Shows like these are worthy of maybe a 'graph or two on the station's page and not its own article. I was going to nominate it myself, but someone else beat me to the punch. TV Newser 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This AFD was apparently nominated by someone who has a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CFIF against the creator of the article. Despite this, it seems to be a valid nomination. TV Newser 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, supporting TVN ST47 11:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep bad (more like downright horrible)-faith nom with a user who insists on deleting everything I've created or worked on heavily. Seems to be a WP:POINT issue. --CFIF ☎ 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge seems reasonable, good faith nom or not. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - the article only adds two facts independent of the main article -- should be easy enough to merge. Leuko 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - supporting other "merge" supporters. Worthy to be mentioned , but not enough material to warrant its own article. -- azumanga 03:17, 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 delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban lifestyle

Pretty close to patent nonsense, the bits that aren't total nonsense read like an attack against the articles subject. Almost certianly can be worked into some other article as blurb or something--205.188.117.69 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article was vandalised in this edit. Nominating the entire article for deletion is not the way to fix vandalism! Uncle G 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a pretty reasonable point, still seems a bit lacking in terms of content, could be merged into somthing else without too much trouble--205.188.117.74 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Still basically just a dicdef with a little bit of disparaging content at the end "as generally elevated crime and pollution rates" which is mostly false anyway--205.188.117.74 00:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please do not conflate dictionary articles with stub encyclopaedia articles. The two are not the same thing. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone can create some citations backing up some of this information. Do articles exist describing other lifesytles (ex., the cowboy lifestyle)? I didn't find any, and this just seems to be a stub that is propogating stereotypes of urban life. will381796 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please actually look for sources yourself when discussing articles at AFD. An article is only unverifiable if it cites no sources on the subject, and your best efforts to find sources yourself have failed. It is not sufficient just to look at Wikipedia to see whether other articles exist. Indeed, the "If article X then article Y." argument is a fallacious one. Please look for sources. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears in its current form to be just a generalisation about how millions of people live- unless this can be shown to be a specific term used in a specific way in some documents, rather than just a stereotype, there's no more need for this article than for an article generalising about what it's like to live in the countryside. Robotforaday 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please actually attempt to determine whether the documents that you want exist. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• A small amount of research using Google Scholar turns up plenty of source material on the subject of an urban lifestyle, including studies of its medical impact and the travel behaviour of people with that lifestyle. The further reading section of the article contains just a few of them. The article requires significant improvement, but the sources exist, and this is why it is a stub. Deletion is not the way to fix a stub such as this. See our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The way to fix the article, and any "mostly false" content in it, is to change the content to be verifiable, using the many sources on the subject that appear to exist, citing them as one goes. Keep. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You might misunderstand me. I am sure there is a huge amount of published material on what might be termed the "urban lifestyle", just as there is a whole pile of material on what might be termed "country living". The question is whether the term refers to a generalisable phenomenon in the way that the article currently suggests it does. To add an article in which one says everything possible about what it's like to live in a city is perhaps a bit of a stretch- I would say that it either drags us into the "random collection of information" zone or, otherwise, would simply be a statement of a stereotype- for which there is no place on WP. However, if this refers to a specific term used in a specific way (I haven't yet seen any evidence that it does), then that is a different matter. Robotforaday 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful and redirect to Urban culture, which is a lamentably neglected stub. -- Visviva 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See also: Urban lifestyles, Urban tribe, Urban etc......., multiple articles on the same subject, none of them seem to be more than lists of sterotypes of varied lengths. Not to mention, if anything, this article has gotten worse since it's been improved, the vandalised version might actually have been better than the current one--205.188.117.74 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• It seems no one actually closed this before it passed into the archive--172.129.200.208 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,172.129.200.208 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR. Nonsense. C56C 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — The name doesn't make sense (there's no actual real definition of an urban lifestyle), and it seems like someone who's from a rural area and doesn't like cities too much. Not only not NPOV, but also if wikified, would be extremely hard to salvage. I think City is good enough, there's no need for this article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. This reads like an essay about how bad urban lifestyle is. JIP | Talk 06:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP and C56C ST47 11:22, 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. There was no credible claim to notability (A7), and the article was unverifiable and of questionable authenticity. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Hadezul

Non notable, possible hoax, as no hits arrive on Yahoo! except for WP. [[1]] Ataricodfish 02:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete hoax or NN either way it deleted. C56C 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax -- rather than a famous socialist, he's a nonfamous 15 year old per his blog. NawlinWiki 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per his organization's website they have six other members besides him. Fan-1967 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per F1967 and C56C ST47 11:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nawlin. Dev920 15:38, 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, functionally empty and with only 91 unique Gogoles likely to remain that way. Just zis Guy you know? 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A2Z Magazine

Seems to be small, nn magazine, and the page is just totally incomprehensible. Plus, the editor that created this page seems to be recreating deleted pages and mainly created this page because they have a thing for one of the models. Renosecond 02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, first sentence of article is "A2Z Isn't A Very Famous Magazine." NawlinWiki 03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NW ST47 11:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Nawlin. -- Kicking222 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probably qualifies for speedy. --Yamla 14:29, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Esposito

Fails WP:BIO guidelines. Possible vanity. Notablity not asserted. C56C 02:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Falls under speedy A7. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Um, assistant pastor at his dad's church. NawlinWiki 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Could not find any reference to the books he wrote about the evils of public school. 205.157.110.11 10:34, 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 Speedy Delete. Yanksox 04:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Hogan

Article is a direct copy from the 50 Cent article under a different name that has no apparent relation to 50 Cent Scottmsg 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as blatant vandalism. Fan-1967 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. C56C 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete cuz. Danny Lilithborne 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, so tagged, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 03:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speddy Delete TJ Spyke 03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete clear vandalism and a direct ripoff of the real 50 cent article. --Edgelord 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Vandalism. Clay4president 03:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per all of the above. ---Charles 03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oh, and the article's author, the ubiquitous Ryan Hogan, needs a severe talking-to, to paraphrase The Shining. ---Charles 03:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G1/A7/WP:HOAX TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vandalism, nothing more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:53, 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 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The iDol (movie)

Nonnotable 57-minute independent film, shown (as far as the article says) at one film festival in July 2006. IMDB rating "awaiting 5 votes". NawlinWiki 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 11:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Page updated to include more information, links to reviews from established film writers, etc. The film was only recently completed and had it's premiere at the Canadian FanTasia Film Festival. The film is beginning to make it's way around the world at several different festival's, the next being the UK's Festival Of Fantastic Films: http://fantastic-films.com/festival/

Information on IMDB.com is incorrect - the film's runtime is much more than 57 minutes. I have a review screener copy, and the film is 2-minutes shy of 1hr30mins. The film was created with the help of some of Japans best filmmakers, including those who worked on The Grudge and RINGU films. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesballard1986 (talk • contribs).

• Delete sadly, a waste of much time and effort - what are the chances of any verifiable significant coverage in reliable sources for a film which has, according to the article, been screened precisely twice? Just zis Guy you know? 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Leuko 19:46, 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 due to lack of context. What does it do? Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kanosis

Nonnotable software; article is nearly incoherent and written like an advertisement. Deprodded by author with no explanation or attempt to improve. I don't think this is the same Kanosis that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanosis, though. NawlinWiki 03:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant vanity ad. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:VANITY ST47 11:25, 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. Mangojuice^talk 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Blumberg

I believe this article does not meet WP:BIO notability standards Seaphoto 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per bio TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just a litle short of the WP:BIO standard. MysteryDog 14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have asked the creator to clarify the claims to notability, for example the size of the company he works for. 172 unique Googles is unpromising, I must say. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Leuko 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Not at all. Adraeus 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per nom. Dionyseus 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I strongly object to this nomination. The lack of research committed by the deletionists is astounding.

1. The article describes the notability of the subject; although, familiarity with defense industry is necessary to understand that the content of the article does indeed substantiate the subject as notable.
2. DRS Technologies [2], a $3 billion USD defense company, supplies defense electronics to every major branch of the United States Military. In 2005, DRS was a Forbes Best Managed Companies in the United States. DRS has also spent time as one of the Forbes 400 Best Big Companies in America.
3. The subject also established the San Diego Military Advisory Council, a high-profile group consisting of mostly top executives from major defense companies and many military officers, that deals with high-profile issues relevant to San Diego.
4. In addition to being on the board of directors of every organization in which he's been involved, he is also a former president of the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl — a nationally televised NCAA-sanctioned event. (Do non-notable people speak live to 50,000 people in a stadium?) He plays a significant role in Fleet Week San Diego, a major Naval Festival; the Coronado Speed Festival, a major classic automobiles and racing event; as well as in the San Diego chapters of Navy League of the United_States, Surface Navy Association, and Rotary International — all of which are immense and powerful organizations.
5. The subject was also the first (not 1st) commanding officer of a Spruance class destroyer and the first (not 1st) commanding officer of now-retired Vice Admiral Timothy LaFleur, who is Vice President of the Surface Navy Association on the West Coast.

The bottom line is that this subject is definitely notable. Anyone who's anybody in defense knows that. Adraeus 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Please review Wikipedia:Notability. Adraeus 12:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the defense industry, Navy League ,and the US Navy. The first time I ran across the name was in the Spruance class destroyer article. This was caught my attention,because other articles of this type don't detail the commanding officers for the ships involved - every class would of course have a first commanding officer, and each ship in that class would have one an initial commander, and many more thereafter. Following the link,I thought perhaps the gentleman was notable for some other reason, but he appears, at best, to be known in the San Diego area. He works for a division of a large company, but does not head that division. The first commanding officer of a retired admiral? Hardly notable; in fact the admiral in question doesn't have an article on WP. I am not persuaded to rescind my delete.Seaphoto 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Your logic regarding the first arguments are valid; although, there are many people who are considered notable for being the first to do something.
2. You are continuing to ignore the accomplishments of the subject.
3. You are assuming that region negates notability.
4. You are also assuming that Wikipedia contains articles on every notable subject.

Your argument for deletion lacks substance, a truism of any belief. Adraeus 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. WP:BIO also suggests editors think critically instead of blindly and rigidly misconstruing WP:BIO as policy. The WP:BIO guidelines cannot "fail" articles precisely because guidelines are intended to direct effort — not govern behavior. Adraeus 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep First commander of a Spruance-class is notable, in my opinion. Plinth molecular gathered 18:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The definitive work on the Spruance Class is Electronic Greyhounds: The Spruance Class Destroyers, By Captain Michael C. Potter (ISBN 1-55750-682-5). I could find no mention of Captain Blumberg in this book, which argues against the above point, as other officers are mentioned by name. Seaphoto 01:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while I can see why each of the things the subject is mentioned for is individually not particularly notable, I feel that taken as a whole he himself is notable. He is someone I would expect to find in a Who's Who. While I realise this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, his wide range of experience lends itself to his potential inclusion in many other articles. Without his own article I fear duplication of information. Mallanox 19:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails my 510 standard for notability with two local articles and no superregional coverage. Also one article by the San Diego Union-Tribune calls the San Diego Military Advisory Council a "splinter group". ~ trialsanderrors 07:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure he's an accomplished guy. Does not meet the My Dad criteria -- he's not as accomplished as my dad, who doesn't have an article and shouldn't. Destroyer captain, meh. Member of boards of directors, meh. Director of notable organizations -- sure the organizations may be notable, not their heads. I'm glad for him that he's had a productive life. Millions of others have, too. Herostratus 18:02, 30 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. Dakota 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Robert Strachan

Obvious hoax to me, however, it is elaborate enough not to fit in the speedy criteria. To put things more specifically however, it looks like Original research and not Verifiable for the parts which are about the person Robert Strachan, and the parts which are about real historical figures can be accommodated on their own page. Ansell 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant hoax. Most of the article is copied from Lord Nelson's article. The bit about his being honored by Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square is kind of a dead giveaway. Fan-1967 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Avakynesian Guys, this isn't a hoax; I mean, I live in Scotland, and unfortunately it's true!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oppish (talk • contribs). (User:Avakynesian has not edited this page.)

I have copied lots from Lord Nelson, but that's because him and lord strachan are related. You see, there are some referances from nelson to Strachan and also, this is my first article. I have a few citations if someone wants some!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.47.31.7 (talk • contribs) .

Give me a citation, Oppish. Then I will believe you!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avakynesian (talk • contribs) . 00:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We are concerned that you cannot prove it is not a hoax. Ansell 04:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Scotland, and I have herad an awful lot about this guy . . . Ansell, just wait while I go check this citation out at BBC.com!

See. i told you its no hoax! besides, why would i pollute wikipedia with rubbush, just for fun? like i said, it's my first article. im sorry if i copied stuff, i mean, i needed something to look off of! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oppish (talk • contribs).

Copying the content was not a violation, however, it is unnecessary to do it the way you did. If you could remove all content not related to the subject of the page it would make this easier. Ansell 04:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Stop using the unsigned tag. On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.. -- Fan-1967 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it is true. This citation from BBC Checked out. Oppish, perhaps could you clean this article up a bit . . . or maybe alot! I mean, suppose if it get's deleted, you could fix it up by rearranging those blunt plagirisms? And perhaps fixing it soon? Avakynesian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.47.31.7 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment You blew it. You forgot to log back in, so your IP address was visible when you posted as Oppish above, and then posted as Avakynesian. We know there's only one of you. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Fan-1967 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I disagree that this doesn't deserve speedy; this is patent nonsense. VoiceOfReason 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I give in, it fits because it is not truly intelligible. The individual facts dont gel together, and hence it does indeed fit under the speedy criteria. Sorry for wasting peoples time! Ansell 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• No need to apologize, you were acting in good faith and doing what you thought was right. It's definitely better to err on the side of not speedily deleting an article if there's any question about it. No waste of time involved :) VoiceOfReason 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. There's nothing to argue about here. This equates to vandalism. Among numerous problems, this clearly does not pass WP:V. Interesting that someone who is currently 15yrs 4mths old supposedly received the pretigious OBE "at age sixteen". Total garbage. CindyLooWho 05:03, 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 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quest for Margaret and Guardians of Enilorac

Delete. Hoax - zero google hits for either. No references of any kind despite two requests - because there aren't any. No response from the creator despite further edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding The Quest for Enilorac to the nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable fiction, unverifiable. Based on the articles, some sort of amateur fiction that was posted briefly on Xanga. Fan-1967 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967.--Peta 05:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ST47 11:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. The second one should be speediable - web fiction series where the author lost interest only after four episodes. And the third? They lost interest before they even started? This was a truly terrible idea for an article. Just zis Guy you know? 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Leuko 19:47, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fineos

Originally was a PROD, but I de-PROD'd it, I'm not too sure, and I brought it here for consensus Yanksox 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Seems like a notable company, but the current article is an advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM ST47 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I've cut out most of the advertising and added some refs for the awards claims, but although there are sources to establish its notability, I'm not sure I have time to rewrite an article that I'm not interested in. Yomangani^talk 11:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yomangani's cleanup shows credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability and adds external sources. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep good info, company has won notable awards. Mallanox 19:31, 27 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 nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quenzer

The article seems confused about what the topic is. It originally contained no mention of the word quenzer, and now only uses the word to point out that the article doesn’t define it. It contains an apparently unrelated brief description of the origin of the name Smith, text that was also added to (and later removed from) the Smith article. A Google search for quenzer sheds no light on the mystery of what this article was supposed to be. Maybe this was meant to be a user page, or maybe it was supposed to have a different title. Either way, it doesn’t belong here. --Rob Kennedy 04:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. JIP | Talk 06:59, 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 keep -- Samir धर्म 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Mumbai "Sweet" Seawater Incident

Unencyclopedia article about an event which may or may not have occurred, and which as non notable news is outside the scope of wikipedia. Delete --Peta 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable news event. WP:NOT Wikinews or Your Local Paper (TM). --Kinu ^t/_c 05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my recommendation to keep for cleanup and expansion now that it's been sourced with references from major media outlets (Hindustan Times, Times of India, BBC News, etc.), indicating that it isn't just a local interest story. Although the title could use some improvement so it isn't so wordy (that, and is it properly cased?). --Kinu ^t/_c 15:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Every item in history was at some time a news event and non-notable depending on geographical location. From a scientific standpoint, this article has merit. It's not a murder or celebrity marriage or any of the other dross that clogs up our news channels, this is an extremely unusual event, look in any decent encyclopaedia, you will find instances of events just like this one. Mallanox 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The incident DID take place. Every major newspaper and TV channel in India covered it. It was a first page news-item and first news item of most news channels. Also, this isn't a celebrity flick with no long term potential, and has notability because of scientific basis of the mass hysteria. The article isn't written well, but is still keep-worthy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopaedic, sourced - I'm not sure there's anything else. WilyD 13:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. Covered not by the local paper but by national media. Given prominent coverage even by Indian government. -- Lost^(talk) 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I guess - an example of an interesting natural phenomenon. Just zis Guy you know? 19:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per JzG, and interesting anyway. Needs a bit more cleanup and a peer review. --TheM62Manchester 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Covered by BBC. Leuko 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Create a new article create a new article explaining this scientific phenomenon. and then cite the mumbai incident as one of its examples. who knows this incident might occur in other countries as well. --Ageo020 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we can do that in case this sort of phenomena have been well documented and discussed before, and we have scientific sources; until we do, it's better to keep this thing as it is. When we do have an article on the general topic, we can always reconsider whether we need to merge it. Right now, however, keeping it might be the best choice... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Per lost Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable incident of mass hysteria. --Ragib 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Could be linked or merged to a superstition article TerryJ-Ho
• Keep (Speedy keep if possible) - This event almost certainly did occur, I remember seeing reports on CNN International and even Polish TV news channel, so I guess it was pretty major news. See Boston molasses disaster for a pretty good article on a more-or-less comparable incident. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure a speedy is not possible. WilyD 13:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry to hear that. In that case we have to wait until the regular procedure ends, and I can't see how it could not end with a "keep" in view of all the arguments presented here. Still, too bad if we miss a good DYK because of that. Bravada, talk - 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • True enough - in any event, I also agree the concensus seems to be keep. WilyD 14:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the great reasoning above. :) Srose (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What do you mean it may not have occurred? Its all over India. Its also on verifiable sources like Yahoo, BBC, CNN, etc. Definitely keep...Reppin the bay 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: fascinating story. Absolutely appropriate for this encyclopedia. --AStanhope 09:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep articles about current events are okay if they're of historic proportions and something encyclopaedic can be said about them; mysterious nature incidents are okay if we have sources and all that, too. And this one pretty much satisfies both. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --- Skapur 23:34, 24 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. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partridge Green Football Club

Was tagged for speedy deletion but didn't look like a speedy. Felt that it should go through an AFD. Just nominating, no opinion from me. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently this club is at the 13th level of the English football system. Generally clubs below level 10 are not considered notable enough to warrant articles on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 06:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it's at the 12th position, actually. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Subcomment. Apparently, 11th position is notable enough, as many 11th position teams have articles (and a good few 12th position teams as well, including one league that has practically all 12th position teams with articles, and a league template to boot). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Established consensus, as stated in WP:CORP is that only clubs in levels 1-10 are considered notable (see archived discussion). A systematic deletion of clubs below that level needs to be performed but I haven't had the time recently. Qwghlm 13:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If this club is at level 12 as English football league system implies, why does the main article on West Sussex Football League indicate that its top level (one level above this club) is at level 12? I'm just asking; the answer won't affect my recommendation either way. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails notability criterion for English football clubs as laid out in WP:CORP. Qwghlm 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Too low down in league tier system, plus the article is virtually empty anyway. Djdannyp 07:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 11:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete close to empty, well below the level where there is likely to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Qwghlm. Leuko 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is simply a stub and content is being expanded. Several teams from the 13th position are listed. --msabag21:16, 26 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 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tent University Santa Cruz

A minor student action in 2005, not encyclopedic, delete --Peta 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Tent University may be encyclopaedic, individual universities' versions would need some serious evidence of significance, which is absent here. Just zis Guy you know? 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mallanox 19:33, 27 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 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AutoAdmit.com

Not notable; clearly fails WP:WEB. Google shows 107,000 hits, but all but 3 are at this site itself or its mirror, xoxohth.com. The only unrelated results are this Wikipedia article, another forum, and what appears to be an advertisement. Dylan 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising --Xrblsnggt 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM ST47 11:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and conspicuous absence of reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' - 6,000,000 posts and tens of thousands of posters seems pretty notable to me. Alexa rating is 69k, this isn't exactly HIGH but I thought the general rule of thumb is that <100k is notable enough. It does need a cleanup, though. --Pyroclastic 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but WP:WEB disregards the size of a forum or number of posters in determining notability; a forum is perceived as notable if others have commented on it in reliable sources, and for this site, none have (as I mentioned in the nomination). Without such sources to provide information on the subject, it would be impossible to expand this article beyond a stub and still maintain WP:V and WP:NOR, because we have no reliable information about the site to reproduce here. Dylan 23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, JzG. Eusebeus 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yet another unnoteworthy forum - Blood red sandman 13:38, 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 delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Goddess Bunny

Non-notable home movie available only through the guy who made it. Rklawton 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Keep - hmmm, doesn't an IMDB link make it notable? Camillus (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - Given that anyone can create an IMDB entry, no. Rklawton 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - to be fair, IMDB does have some standards to meet when adding a movie: low enough that any movie which doesn't have an IMDB entry can probably immediately be written off as non-notable, but not high enough to meet Wikipedia notability standards just from inclusion. Mark Grant 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - thanks for that - I didn't realise that! Camillus (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep for a home movie, it seems to have garnered a lot of review attention. Not sure whether it's enough to be notable, but in cases of doubt I'd prefer to err on the side of keeping. The video does seem to be available on ebaumsworld and possibly other sites. Paddles ^T_C 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unreleased and unremarkable film which fails to demonstrate notability or verifiability. Film school projects get more attention that this appears to have done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable home film. The IMDB page has 1 comment and 21 votes. JIP | Talk 07:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Alex S 08:22, 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 redirect to WFHN. - Bobet 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Medeiros

This page was nominated for deletion by an anonymous user who could not create the AfD page. I am just fixing the nomination, although it appears that the subject is a disc jockey and may be non-notable. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• that is, the NN part of the nom, not the no vote part :P ST47 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to WFHN. Dinosaur puppy 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and reditect to WFHN. Mallanox 11:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Disc jockey in third-rate market. Herostratus 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to WFHN. Does not meet WP:V or WP:BIO. --Satori Son 20:45, 30 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 deleted - no assertion of notariety. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David J Steinberg

Seems to be non-notable vanity article and I would have speedied it, but it mentions the subject working with Ron Howard, and thought an afd might be more appropriate WillMak050389 05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:V. This is just a vanity page. "Worked with Ron Howard" means nothing. He probably got the guy coffee one time while on the movie set. I could say that I worked with Sidney Poitier and technically not be lying - but I'm not deserving of a WP:BIO either. CindyLooWho 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought as much, just wanted to make sure here. --WillMak050389 06:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The IMDB has an entry for a David J. Steinberg, but their bios have nothing in common and so I assume it's someone else (and based on the photo, the article subject wouldn't have been old enough in 1997 to have worked on a movie). Delete as horribly unclear vanity, verifiability, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah - definitely not the same David J. Steinberg as the IMDB entry. This DJS's myspace page puts him at 23. The other DJS was a 'Director of Production' on Disney's Mulan in 1997/98. Nobody is a Director of anything on a Disney movie at 14/15yrs old.CindyLooWho 06:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability by association doesn't work here. Medtopic 06:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MedTopic, Starblind, and CLW ST47 11:34, 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 No consensus. NawlinWiki 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur DeBoer

Physician - assertion of notability is that he was a pioneer in congential heart defect research. "Arthur DeBoer" and "heart" turns up two possible hits, so I can't verify notability. Not convinced that being a pioneer in Chicago or the first at a particular hospital is notable. -AED 22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination. I'm still not clear on what grounds he is most notable, but he has conducted a significant amount of research that should meet WP:PROF. -AED 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does appear to have co-authored a few papers in the field ([3]), but still not enough to convince me of notability. -Elmer Clark 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - "Pioneer" is notable. He did one in '58, and that's about as pioneer as it gets for open heart surgery. Rklawton 00:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Are either of those points verifiable? -AED 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of WP:RS, the only link is not an independent source. Sandstein 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just google "DeBoer cardiac" and there's evidence. Most of his notable work is pre-Net. VivianDarkbloom 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as per WP:V ST47 11:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep subject's notability is asserted in the article. Subject is probably verifiable but (shock horror) maybe not on the net. Mallanox 11:53, 28 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. Assertion of notability is enough to avoid speedy deletion, but to be kept after the scrutinty of an AfD it needs to be verified - verifiability is non-negotiable and there is no indication that it will happen here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nandini Rajendran

Unreferenced article about a "renowned and popular social worker". Not sure about this one since I can't find any information to verify notability. Medtopic 06:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Difficult one. The article needs to assert this person's seniority in terms of government. If she is a member of a team of 20 people doing the same job, then it is not notable, but if she has done lots of work and is in a high position in the government presiding over teams AND has accomplished something notable, then I see no reason why this should be deleted. Let the article expand first. Benjaminstewart05:-) 09:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment per benstewart. i certainly don't think this one is a hoax or vanity. Difficult because google doesn't give any hits on this person except in wiki and its mirrors. she probably is covered in tamil newspapers. stall the afd for now atleast.--Ageo020 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as the lack of ability to verify anything about her means that having an article fails WP:V. GRBerry 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. GRBerry 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not as if we totally lack the ability to verify anything. We can at least verify that the body she is supposed to have headed, the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, definitely exists, and in 2003 had a budget of Rs. 5,58,17,90,000, or US$119,946,653.07[4], which is a non-trivial amount in India. They also are well-known as the progenitors of the wildly successful Mid-day meal scheme that's been discussed ad nauseum in NGO circles. Some notability there, perhaps. Hornplease 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please note that Google does not give you any hits regarding coverage in Local Media Doctor Bruno 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Whether or not she can be verified through the net on English websites may be an issue. I think someone with local knowledge should look at this article before it is deleted. There is a tag that can be added asking for expert attention. Mallanox 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to conclude that any info on this person is verifiable unless someone can actually produce a source; the web is pretty dry on the subject. Mangojuice^talk 16:49, 31 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 12:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CreationWiki

Non-notable Wiki. I don't see any verifiable information from reliable sources and certainly there are no secondary sources cited. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Also, not an especially large number of articles on this wiki either, though thats not a criteria for keep or delete. This was nominated for deletion before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki - 4 months ago), and was "no consesus" with most of the keep votes being bad reasons, such as the idea that we should keep this article because it shows that Wikipedia doesn't hate it. All the keep reasons in the previous AFD had no basis in Wikipedia policy and it probably should've been deleted by the closing admin. Anyways, a brief mention in Christian wikis (which there is now) is enough. Delete per above reasoning. Wickethewok 06:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Christian wikis. The wiki seems to be notable to be mentioned, but the article reads like a soapbox and a possible attack on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 07:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JIP ST47 11:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Leaning towards weak delete, but this article still violates NPOV, regardless of edits. Also it seems to me to violate the soapbox and indiscriminate collection of information (non-encyclopedic) portions of WP:NOT. --65.16.61.35 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or chainsaw-trim if merged to Christian wikis. I find the current entry on that page sufficient, and this wiki definitely isn't notable enough on its own. The current article has a lot of factoids that aren't very interesting and can be left away, or are just tangential rhetoric that has no bearing on the site itself (Runs MediaWiki? Thousands of sites run MediaWiki. Is nevertheless not part of the Wikimedia Foundation? Yeah, like guesstimatingly 99% of all MediaWiki sites. They don't like Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Neither do a lot of people who can't realise most people disagee with them, I'm afraid.) If you trim all that stuff, you end up with not really a whole lot more than what's already in Christian wikis article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (and possibly redirect). This is soapbox content not article content. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An exclusionist wiki makes itself non-notable through its narrow view. Mallanox 12:03, 28 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 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of pseudoscientists

As noble the intent may be, this list is totally misguided. It is fallacy to assume, that the existence of Pseudoscience imply the existence of "Pseudoscientists". Those people notably involved in Pseudoscience regarding one field of "research" are often bona fide scientists in other fields, having mainstream academic credibility. Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is perfectly reasonable mathematican, whereas his New Chronology is perfectly unreasonable pseudoscientific nonsense in the field of history. --Pjacobi 07:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Medtopic 07:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Apart from the reasons given in the nomination, the term is dubious under the WP:NPOV policy, especially when the entries are unreferenced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, didn't we delete something very similar in the past two months? Gazpacho 07:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_28#Category:Pseudoscientists --Pjacobi 08:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That was overturned though by a DRV and a second CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_12#Category:Pseudoscientists was no consenus. Its still there. --Edgelord 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavens! --Pjacobi 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft ST47 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another listcruft, POV. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the category too! Completely, hopelessly, unfixably POV. wikipediatrix 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. The category deserves the same. Pavel Vozenilek 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This list was created as an attempt to forestall the re-creation of the Pseudoscientists category. The strongest argument against the category was that it didn't allow for annotation of entries, and so a list was suggested as an alternative. Before you delete this list, I would suggest trying to re-delete the category and see for yourself why this is quite possibly the best compromise available. Also, FYI, I was the person who nominated the category for deletion in the first place. --Wclark 07:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I hate the word "cruft" as a dismissive and inarticulate replacement for a good reason, this is exactly what this article is. Mallanox 12:06, 28 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 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD World

There is no promotion of the actual company, this is simply talking about the term DVD World, which is a trademark and not promoting any company, the company is only stated for purpose of stating who owns the name DVD World.

Despite the bold claims, I'm not sure that this satisfied WP:CORP. Now mentions in Google news, only info I can find is at the company's website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Self-promotion created by the owner/author. --Dennette 09:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:VAIN ST47 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Moreover, the manner in which this article was written sounds like a self-promotion. The absence of any reference in this article is also a major concern here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is no promotion of the actual company, this is simply talking about the term DVD World, which is a trademark and not promoting any company, the company is only stated for purpose of stating who owns the name DVD World. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.200.97 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Comic Issue

Not remotely useful. The chances that anyone would search for "A Comic Issue" are approximately 0. Alex S 07:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea what this article is supposed to be saying. Is the name of a page taken from a title of a book- that is, could the (almost nonsensical) info in the article be copyrighted? -- Kicking222 11:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Kicking222 amd as per WP:CSD ST47 11:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as some combination of original research and dictionary definition. NawlinWiki 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete pointless OR; should be in comic book if any is worth keeping. — brighterorange (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at best, this could be merged with comic book collecting article, but even there it would not fit very well.Rorndoff 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not worthy of its own page, and only worth a sentence or two in another article. RainbowCrane | Talk 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikibooks as Wikibooks:How to collect comics. However, some comics suck poop. --Nintendude ^message 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, definitely some crazy form of WP:OR and WP:NOT a how-to guide that isn't close to being encyclopedically relevant information. Yeah, thanks for telling me that Issue #2 comes after Issue #1... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:00, 28 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 llama —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangojuice (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Orgle

This page was de-prodded way back in the day In March and I barely took notice of it until someone decided to edit it today. It's a sound. Made by a camel. Notable enough? You decide! Grandmasterka 07:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If it's good enough for the Llamapaedia, it should be good enough for us. Also, a Google search turns up a good number of llama-related hits. --Alex S 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to llama, deserves a mention in that article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to llama -- Whpq 12:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to llama. Can't imagine how this article could be expanded past stub-stage and stand on its own two (four?) feet. Fairsing 04:23, 27 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, merge article "Spa Road Junction rail crash" into Spa Road Junction and delete Spa Road Junction rail crash, making it a redirect to Spa Road Junction. Herostratus 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spa Road Junction

Its an article about a piece of track and there is already an article: Spa Road Junction rail crash. Mrsteviec 07:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, otherwise merge, (NOT delete) but a bit of info: - When I was writing the Spa Road Junction rail crash, the description of the junction appeared to take over the article. I considered that at the beginning of the article of the accident, it would put people off reading and detracted from the article for this reason, even if it had it's own subheading. I also considered it inappropriate at the end. I therefore considered it best to put it in an article of its own where there was a link very early on in the crash article. This stopped the relevannt but lengthy information about the junction taking over the other artcle, but offered it very early on. Notice how only the minimal information about the specifics of the junction was mentioned in the accident article. I think if we get rid of this then we need to merge and not delete. Nickg1980 12:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Spa Road Junction rail crash --Brad101 07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, three doors down. Uncle G 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a deletion. One article deals with the junction and another deals with an accident that occurred there. The accident is notable, the junction is not. Mrsteviec
    • Redirection is always a cheap and inexpensive option which can be way faster than AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. When you find yourself writing "there is already an article", Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first stop. Uncle G 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge Spa Road Junction rail crash into this article. This article can be more general in scope than the crash article, and can be expanded if the junction becomes notable for something else in future, whereas the crash article has narrow room for expansion as it focuses only on one specific incident. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (prefered) or merge to the crash article. Thryduulf 00:37, 30 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 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sasha Kaun

WP:OR and WP:BIO Prod tag removed by same person who authored Timo Connor Brad101 07:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep— Sasha Kaun is a highly notable NCAA player, passes WP:BIO. [5] He was the main subject of a KUsports.com article. [6] Has a player card at ESPN.com. [7] He is being watched for possibility of being drafted into the NBA in 2007. [8] What more can I say, this guy deserves an article. Dionyseus 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - multiple press articles -- Whpq 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If he's the starting center for the Jayhawks, doesn't that make him notable? Herostratus 23:20, 29 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Unnar Illugason

This footballer has not played on professional level, as required by WP:BIO. Punkmorten 07:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• and is already a Icelandic under-17 international <-- Does this mean he's played on the national junior team? (I don't really follow soccer). If so, he definitely passes WP:BIO WilyD 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that means he played for the national team in the under-17 age group against the under-17 national team of other countries.... ChrisTheDude 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ChrisTheDude's explaination that he passes WP:BIO, specifically Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports WilyD 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, ChrisTheDude says nothing of him meeting WP:BIO. Do you know why? Because he doesn't. Playing on the national boys (not junior) team does not constitute notability, and Illugason has not played in a fully professional league. Punkmorten 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Spot on, Punkmorten, being capped at under-17 level doesn't cut it, neither does having played in the Icelandic top division..... ChrisTheDude 07:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It still does per or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports - a professional league is not required. To boot, WP:BIO is just a guideline, so it is more important to follow the spirit rather than the letter (which we're also following in this case) under WP:BIAS WilyD 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Football is not a mainly amateur sport, so that one doesn't count. Second, it's easy to play the WP:BIAS card in discussions like these, but I would rather direct the effort to Icelandic national team players without articles, which I have had on my task list for some time. See RSSSF for a comprehensive list of national team players who ought to have articles here (unfortunately the page doesn't load right now). Punkmorten 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Of course there are lots of articles that still need making, but that's hardly a good reason to delete other articles - Wikipedia is still a work in progress. As for there being lots of professional soccer players, that may be true, but given the context, it's an inappropriate comparison. WilyD 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • What context? His Icelandic nationality? We can't keep articles just because they relate to subjects about some of the more obscure nations. That is not the essence of WP:BIAS. Punkmorten 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, if there's a fully professional league in Iceland that he's elidgible to play in but doesn't, it might be used to make a case for him failing WP:BIO - but even still, playing on the national team is the kind of thing that WP:BIO is looking for. WilyD 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Not the boys' national team. Punkmorten 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • Every precedent I've seen suggests otherwise. WilyD 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • Show me one please. I can only think of two off the top of my head, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo Tornaghi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Capelloni where players of Internazionale's junior team were deleted. Punkmorten 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
                      • Okay, here we kept someone based on his involvement in junior level sports, for instance. I couldn't find any other examples either way. WilyD 19:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the assumption that he actually played for the first team at Breiðablik UBK as appears to be the case. That's the highest level of footy in Iceland, which meets WP:BIO for me. The fact that it's not a professional team doesn't matter as I read it, because it's the highest one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be verified that he has played at the highest level of Icelandic football and at the second highest level of English football (Ipswich Town are in The Championship according to their article. A quick glance suggests many players in this league have articles.) Thryduulf 00:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: He has never played for the Ipswich first XI ChrisTheDude 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mention of playing for a club at the top level of the Icelandic league constitutes a claim of notability. --Pkchan 17:16, 30 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merete Lien

This is a dead end article about a non-notable author. I'm sure her books are very readable in Norwegian, but her books aren't available in any translation. I can't find any web reviews or news in English about her, and there's only slight coverage in Norwegian. The best bit seems to be a page on the local "literature portal" for Telemark, Norway [9]. Deletion looks like the only answer, unless a Norwegian can help out. Mereda 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Judging mostly from the cover art, she is the prolific author of a fair number of what appear to be romance novels in Norwegian. These appear to be published by a non-vanity publisher, and the series is up to no. 27.[10] Whatever their merits as literature, she seems to be at least borderline notable. Our coverage of comic book writers is deeper than our coverage of romance novelists, but that's WP:BIAS at work. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No way can we delete an author of at least 30 books as non-notable. So her work isn't available in English, so what? We have authors on Wikipedia who have contributed far less to the literary community. Mallanox 12:16, 28 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 Merged both in to Ann Ree Colton and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niscience

delete per WP:SPAM. I consider this a pretty blatant attempt to advertise on wikipedia, and urge its deletion forthwith. I also nominate for deletion Jonathan Murro as a non notable individual who is one of the co-founders of Niscience. Ohconfucius 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:V WilyD 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge both to Ann Ree Colton. No need for three essentially identical articles. NawlinWiki 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; New Age spam. Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge both per NawlinWiki... most of the book results I can find are "om- niscience"; I'm not sure if that's related, but there aren't any non-trivial, independent works about Niscience, so far as I can see. Srose (talk) 14:34, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Liberto

The subject is not notable per WP:BIO. The author has not contributed other articles to wiki. The article could only be written by the subject, and is linked to his personal website. His CV is posted there, and achievements are for all to see, and do not appear to be sufficient stature for inclusion in wiki. Wiki is not a directory. Ohconfucius 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. His two books are published by iUniverse, a vanity publisher. -- Whpq 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Mallanox 12:19, 28 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 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The revival google group

Originally PRODed but removed. On the whole, it's a non-notable Google Group with ~144 members. Text is written in the form of advertisement. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• The group is notable in activity in Asia - http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?&sel=0,50392867,83986080,67188897 and also in Sri Lanka - http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?&sel=0,50392867,50392899 Text has been altered since its original entry and it no longer can be considered an advertisement. --The Ace 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources, even on Google itself. From all appearances, this article is primary source documentation for a Google Group, constructed from firsthand knowledge and mis-using Wikipedia as a hosting service. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host nor a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. This article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no independent coverage of this group outside Google, making the article unverifiable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V WilyD 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This was already deleted as spam for non notable group. What's the point of people removing spam only to have it recreated, and then put on AfD? It should have been zapped as soon as it was recreated.Moriori 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well, spam is not a policy established criteria for speedy deletion, and the recreation criteria (G4) does not apply to things that were speedied. And this club did assert some (although insignificant) notability, which precluded A7. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 02:26, 24 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)  15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UKLI Group

NN per WP:CORP. Prod removed. Clappingsimon talk 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an advertisement for a business of unknown size that's got little news coverage, and I can't see anything verifiable about the claimed subsidiaries of the group. Strangely though (can we libel a company??) there might be scope for the business to become notable in future through negative publicity. See [11] and [12]. --Mereda 11:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I work in a related field and haven't heard of them. Judging from their client base and amount of land they administer they must be tiny. I know size isn't everything but I still don't think they are notable. Mallanox 12:22, 28 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. Herostratus 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MI6.co.uk

Disputed prod. Article doesn't demonstrate compliance with any of the notability demonstrators in WP:WEB. Seems like a run of the mill fan forum to me so I propose Deletion. kingboyk 11:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original prodder, fails WP:WEB. No coverage by external sources hinted at. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please advise me how, as a Wikipedia newbie, I might selvage the article? I believe MI6 to be more than just a 'fanboy' page, but to be a genuine resource! As well as assisting local and international media organizations, MI6 is referenced on a number of Wikipedia pages it's self. I'm not here to cause trouble, but I would only like to see how I can better justify my contribution and all contributions I make from here. Cheers, --Paulus 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  Has this forum been mentioned in reliable sources, such as newspapers and magazines? If it has, and you can mention them in the article, that would increase the chances of it surviving. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is the point I've been trying to get across. It is not merely a fan-forum. In fact the site is kept quite separate from the forums... MI6 is primarily a website. The site, MI6.co.uk (not to be confused with their forums), has been used as a information resource, quoted, etc by several well-known publications. Time Magizine, for example. I have added this to the article and found the appropriate link. --Paulus 05:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can't find the links at the moment but I have read in newspapers published in Britain and New Zealand, and articles from Reuters which have quoted MI6.co.uk when writing reports about James Bond. --Finwyn 01.52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User's 3rd edit. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further information on events MI6 have participated in running and external resources added
• Keep British and international news agencies use the site as a semi-official source of information. Mallanox 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep iff actual instances of being referenced are cited or other reliable sources are provided as references. Thryduulf 00:23, 30 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. — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:31, 27 August 2006}

[edit] Amy Weber

DELETE Due to lack of information and interest, this page should be deleted.MgHoneyBee 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep appeared on national TV weekly for several months while also becoming a notable playboy model... and while apart of WWE she became a household name. thats notable enough to me --- Paulley 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Amy Weber is a beautiful model. One of my all time favorites. She has made a success of herself. Please do not delete.Bengalman2006 02:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Other ex-Diva Search women such as Rochelle Loewen and Rue DeBona still have their articles, as do other women who were only on WWE TV for a short time such as Hiroko Suzuki. It's a notable person (I know I recognized the name) and so-called "lack of interest" wouldn't seem to necessitate deletion. If you think it lacks information--well, that's why it's a Wiki! Tag it with a stub. -Umdunno 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -Maybe not notable for me, but definately notable for more than a few. No reason to be deleted FancyPants 15:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I searched for her on Wikipedia - I'm sure there are others want the information as well. -Bejhammond 23:25, 20 August 2006 (BST)
• Strong KeepFor reasons stated above--Cowboy From Hell 13:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)DJ BatWave
• Strong Keep per Paulley. The page needs to be improved though. TJ Spyke 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep she is notiable due to her involvement with the WWE. Size of an artilce is not a good reason for deletion and not being interested in the person is certainly not criteria. --Edgelord 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Saying that she's a "household name" is a bit of a stretch, but she's notable enough for her TV work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — per Umdunno. Dionyseus 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If she has appeared in so many editions of Playboy, even without being PMoM, she's probably notable enough. Ohconfucius 04:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Blood red sandman 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Lan Di 00:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She seems notable enough to me, however this article needs a good cleanup. KZF 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of interest according to who? Speedy keep is suggested at this point. RFerreira 08:31, 27 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 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-transhumanism

Should the article Anarcho-transhumanism be deleted due to its lack of notability? . --Loremaster 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article cites only one website (which contains only a list of suggested books on transhumanism and anarchism and has no information on the site's authorship) and makes no definite claim that anybody believes in anarcho-transhumanism other than its apparent founder, Pablo Stafforini. -- Schaefer (Talk) 08:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hard to google search on, but I found only 214 ghits (including things like places selling ringtones at the tail end) and no reliable sources at the top end of the search for the article title -Wikipedia and 42 ghits and no reliable sources at the top end of the search for the alternative title (which disputes the origin etc...). This appears to be a pair of neologisms that were coined recently, and we don't have the secondary sources describing the use of either term that are required by WP:NEO in order to have an article. GRBerry 02:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 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 keep. - Bobet 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic radio

Non-notable band

• Delete.RobJ1981 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• notable band, history of San Francisco bay area music scene, all members went on to form other major bands that all released CDs on established labels, links to already wikipedia sites include: Rancid, Critical Mass, Operation Ivy, Tilt, Moon Records, etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criticalmv (talk • contribs).

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Criticalmv. Appears to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• do not delete, This band should be notable. It's a part of Bay Area music history, and lead to a great band like Rancid to form. Keep the article but somehow someone expand on it if possible.
• Don't delete!, Great info, never heard, why should this be deleted. I would wait for expansion of the article.

I say Weak keep but if the article is not expanded within, say, a month, it should be relisted here and Deleted. - Blood red sandman 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Band is notable because of it's members. Whether or not it gets expanded, notability remains. Mallanox 12:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable members thus it meets WP:MUSIC.Herostratus 20:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is weak, but it has potential. Its's hard to find this information anywhere else, so its not common knowledge. The article meets WP:MUSIC. Keep it for awhile and if nothing changes bring it back here. Worthlessboy1420 02:49, 31 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 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bennykrieg

Does anything really need to be said here? WP:OR, WP:V, you name it. I can't think of a speedy category for this but I wish I could. Crystallina 18:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Does anything really need to be said here? You bet it does. 'Bennykrieg' is a work of art that must be preserved for the nation! Edit: by gtheritage care of IMDb. There, is that better! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.8.106.67 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-20 11:51:40 (UTC)
• Don't delete the article -JRyan JamesRyan 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's gotta stay - it's a phenomenon of the internet - b.musso
• Note all the above comments are from anonymous editors. Crystallina 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note - this article is credible and does not deserve deletion from wikepedia due to the comments of one individual. The anonymity of the editors should not devalue their opinions. Bennykreig is a fast growing craze across the internet equating the lines of spamdexing. The individual who complained does obviously not understand this. There is no question that this article deserves a place on wikipedia. I have my own wikipedia account although I do not have time to create my own user page (as I'm sure is the case for many of the above) but my username is x_stoic_x150. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X stoic x150 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-21 23:24:31 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well. Um. Whoops. No wonder nobody was seeing this. Crystallina 13:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the random anons attempting to vote above, I'll go with delete. Highly non-notable (if this... whatever it was... even existed, would it not get more than one Google hit, which is WP itself?), completely OR, and unverifiable. -- Kicking222 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some discussion forum users have made up an idea, named after a discussion forum user that they don't like, and written about it directly in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things made up on a discussion forum one day. The article cites no sources and is quite clearly original research. The place for this is the authors' own web pages, not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, at best a neologism. Is this close enough to an attack page to be speedyable? — Haeleth Talk 12:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Not much of an internet phenomenon with zero Google hits. NawlinWiki 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only thing more ridiculous than this article are all the "votes" to keep. Danny Lilithborne 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism with no google hits -- Whpq 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- it's nothing but an attack page. -- ArglebargleIV 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It should probably be speedied as nonsense...which it patently is. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, get rid of this junk. RFerreira 22:58, 26 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 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameron Grant

Delete. WP:BIO

• Delete per nom. No Google hits. —Michael Hays 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, member of developmental (i.e., junior) national ski team, no other notability asserted. NawlinWiki 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being a member of the developmental team means that one hasn't made the national squad, thus failing WP:BIO, also no sources are provided. -- Whpq 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per CSD A7. Not notable, and no notability asserted. Ohconfucius 04:19, 24 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameron Haven

Due to lack of interest and information, this page should be deleted.MgHoneyBee 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I Think It's Perfect. There doesn't need to be a lot of imformation due to the fact that Cameron Haven doesn't have a lot of imformation about her. JT111 15:19, 22 August (UTC)
• Comment "Lack of interest" is not criteria for deletion

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I'm not confident in notability, but I don't typically take part in wrestling AfDs. She hasn't been in the news, and her claim to fame seems to have been being a contestant on a TV show and being in Playboy. --Wafulz 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being a contestant on a small part of WWE television programming isn't notability, nor is being one of many people to have been in playboy or have been a model. MLA 09:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 03:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Being in Playboy is notable enoughLan Di 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Being part of a playboy spread is not necessarly notable, and this page isn't even close to perfect, a total nn model. Renosecond 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm opposing the sudden proposal of seemingly every Diva Search related article for deletion, but this entry is poorly written and made at the moment. I'm going to say Weak Keep for the moment until we can figure out how to properly merge all this contestant information into the Diva Search article.-Umdunno 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Has done some minor things, but nothing notable. James Duggan 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely non-notable. (Just a side note, if we delete everything someone wasn't interested in we'd have nothing here!). Mallanox 12:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Failed contestant, Playboy minor leaguer, not notable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 29 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 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Antonelli

Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, WP:AUTO. I propose the deletion of this vanity page and autobiography produced by a non-notable individual. 530Ghits for "Charles Antonelli", and not to be confused with professor of electrical engineering at the University of Michigan of the same name and who is the subject of most of the 530 Ghits. "Chaz Antonelli" scores 1270 Ghits, including several blog and message board sites and a majority of Ghits for articles relating to the case of murder victim Adrian Exley, who he knew, and a few more on how he took a day off to petition the State house in Boston against the Male Genital Mutilation Bill Submission. "Chuck Antonelli" scores 10 Ghits, almost all message board sites. I also nominate Rochester Custom Leathers for deletion. This business is a niche leather clothing store in Rochester, New york, started by the subject and author of the piece. It claims to be "one of the largest gay owned custom leather stores in North America". 65 Ghits, among which are list of sponsors, a blog entry for "Chas" created under the handle of "mc4bbs", and some articles on modelling competitions for "Mr Leather". Editors should also consider my third nomination of Multicom-4, a defunct bulletin board system as of April 1999. also a vanity piece from the same author. Ohconfucius 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vote for all three nominations Arwcheek 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I'm not sure if Mc4bbs (talk • contribs) is actually Mr. Antonelli or just a big fan, but I've had no luck engaging the user in dialog over these articles. Fairly decently-written articles, but there's just nothing here worth keeping, unfortunately. Powers ^T 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Dsreyn 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Antonelli article could probably have been speedied. Pascal.Tesson 08:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Tagging the Antonelli article now, that one is a clear case of CSD-A7. Possibly copyvio by the looks of it --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Untagged. I think the list of accomplishments suffices as an assertion of notability. Powers ^T 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable and vanity. Mallanox 12:39, 28 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 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian transhumanism

Should the article Christian transhumanism be deleted due to its lack of notability? --Loremaster 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. -- Schaefer (Talk) 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neither of those rationales are useful. What notability criteria are being applied? How does the subject fail to satisfy them? Please explain why you think that this article, which cites two references, is unverifiable or original research. Uncle G 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete References cited are not reliable sources; the Simon Smith one is a column (columns aren't fact checked in a way to make them reliable sources), the James McLean Ledford one is a personal web page. External links are to advocacy organizations, so again not really reliable sources. Without reliable sources, despite having had the Original Research tag up until our current nominator removed it, it fails WP:V. GRBerry 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone was playing with words inventing XYZ-transhumanism variants. Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No one was playing with words. Although they are not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, there are some individuals and groups who identify themselves as Christians transhumanists. --Loremaster 23:21, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Patrick Lydon

Non-notable author. Has published quite a few books, but all through vanity press Lulu.com. Only 29 unique Google hits for "Christopher Patrick Lydon," and considering ALL of his books have been published since 2003, you'd think there would be quite a large number of hits if they received any sort of coverage at all. -Elmer Clark 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: As per nomination. I must add that the only ghit for the "Ottawa Municipal Grant" (which Lydon is supposed to have won "for his writing") is for this very article.Victoriagirl 03:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment What? I'm quite sure I listed it, how else could it have received another vote? Perhaps it was vandalously removed? Oh well, I suppose it's not important. -Elmer Clark 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked through your contribs at the time of your creating this nomination and you clearly did not place this one on the log. (Thanks to your good edit summaries this made my sleuthing simpler.) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, alright, my mistake. Thanks for checking that out. -Elmer Clark 09:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think DumbBOT is malfunctioning - it's placed the same message on almost every nomination. wikipediatrix 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - the bot has been picking out orphaned AfD nominations not on the daily logs and listing them, with deadly accuracy. This saves AfD space from being swamped with nomination pages that will never be closed or commented on because of nominators' mistakes. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two ways to spot AFD nominations: through the article itself and through the AFD listing pages. It's possible you forgot one of the two? (I have no idea what dumbBOT is doing..) — brighterorange (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete anyone can publish on lulu. — brighterorange (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: non-notable. Eusebeus 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Vanity page about a vanity press published author. RFerreira 08:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete! Okay, so some people think this author is not notable, but many others follow his works closely and are glad to have this source of information on his life, which I haven't been able to find elsewhere.

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

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

The result was moot. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churchs in the Caribbean

Sorry. I created this category when I was too tired and I spelled "Churches" incorrectly. I can't see a way to move it, or correct it, so I have created a new category with the correct spelling and listed this one for deletion. Apologies for my error. Legis 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Created in error. Now superfluous. Legis 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 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 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut Conservative

Delete: Non-notable vanity blog's have no place on WP. This isn't even one of the better known political blogs in Connecticut, and I doubt any meet notability requirements.--Francisx 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete "a unpopular RINO weblog." — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NN Dionyseus 02:28, 24 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. Yanksox 05:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DEREX

No more than advertising for a non-notable product Nunquam Dormio 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• As an advertisement, it's pretty restrained; some information about the manufacturer would actually improve the article. Keep. GMcGath 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Since no references provided, does not meet requirements of WP:V. Some research of my own produced very little as well: "derex+hangover" yields 24 unique Ghits, most of them ads or personal blogs with little information. Using "derex+supplement" gets you up to 188 total Ghits, but the vast majority of those involve an unrelated medical researcher named Dr. L. Derex. In short, I could find no reliable, third-party sources whatsoever that would support sufficient notability. --Satori Son 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Satori Son. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 29 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 redirect to DEREX which this is a duplicate of; also on AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-rex

No more than advertising for a non-notable producr Nunquam Dormio 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 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: Speedy Delete per author's request. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhirendra Choudhury

The page Dhirendra Choudhury needs to be deleted as there is a page Dhirendranath Choudhury -- P.K.Niyogi 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Dhirendranath Choudhury -- Whpq 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Whpq --Ageo020 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - P.K.Niyogi - the article was created by you and you can simply tag it with {{db-author}} for it to be speedily deleted. However, I think merge is a better option in this case -- Lost^(talk) 14:52, 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efren_Ramirez

NN tv person, ever heard of him. delete per WP:HOLE

• Speedy keep, meets all of the notability requirements, and has had several major film roles.--Fallout boy 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, clearly notable. --SJK 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, despite how much I despise Napoleon Dynamite. If I don't even have to read his page to know what his most well-known role is, he's probably notable. -- Kicking222 11:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - clearly notable with the references right in the article. -- Whpq 12:34, 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 13:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filipina Scammer

This is uncycelopedic. POV. WP:POINT. Prod was contested by Blackavenger7 --Howard the Duck 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 100% OR. Danny Lilithborne 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. StuffOfInterest 14:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Without reliable sources, it's an attack page. ColourBurst 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per ColourBurst. A well-sourced page on online dating scams would be good; but this article seems to be merely picking Filipinas out and attacking them. I looked at one of the sources listed, and it actually mentioned several sites involving scams with Russian women but none with Filipinas. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, for obvious reasons. :) --Noypi380 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very speedy delete per above. --Sky Harbor 13:56, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Mountain School

Not a notable elementary school—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deputydog23 (talk • contribs).

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Lakeville, Connecticut. — RJH (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above (or keep). JYolkowski // talk 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an article on a private company that neither meets WP:CORP nor contain an assertion of notability. GRBerry 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools, this school is 85 years old. Silensor 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. Obviously has a place in a comprehensive encylopedia of schools. Kappa 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline, age suggests notability. RFerreira 06:50, 29 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 per Wikipediatrix. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Walcott

DELETE Due to the lack of interest and information,this page should be deleted.MgHoneyBee 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. That is not criteria for deletion. Walcott's acting career and position as a leading glamour model are what make her a notable person. If you want more attention on the article, please use {{attention}} instead. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominator gives no valid reasons for the nomination. wikipediatrix 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be notable in her field. NawlinWiki 14:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to establish broad enough notability. StuffOfInterest 14:16, 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 keep. TerriersFan is correct that 'merge and delete' is not an acceptable outcome to support (it destroys the edit history, which violates the GFDL). He also doesn't go quite far enough, because there are in fact only two possible 'choices' - keep or delete. AfD does not govern merges. After an AfD merging or redirecting may be done based on discussion that took place during the AfD, sometimes by the closing admin, but it is still effectively a 'keep' result as far as the AfD goes - that its content may be moved elsewhere or its own content may be replaced with a redirect is secondary.

Clearly many believe that this should not be a separate article, but it is up to them to discuss, perform and defend the merge in the normal way if they want to. Apart from that we have very few editors arguing for actual deletion, and 'keep (in some form)' is the only possible summary of the consensus here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Prescott's involvement with specific events

I have no sympathy with John Prescott, and do not support his Party. Nevertheless, this article appears to be a political attack, and therefore non-encyclopedic. --Anthony.bradbury 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - This article was split off, following discussion, from the main John Prescott article. See here. The content is referenced and sourced, encyclopaedic and is the result of extensive discussion. Nominator was too quick off the mark (9 minutes after creation?). TerriersFan 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article's author Srose (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - content is useful and referenced, and saves overloading the main article. Blowski 19:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and merge back into the main article. No justification for the split - these are major events in Prescott's career which should be included in the main article. See WP:POVFORK. Lancsalot 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Individual controversies (e.g. Temple etc.) may merit their own articles, if necessitated by lack of space. The title is also terrible- there is often a pretty good correlation between the unwieldyness of an article's title and its requirement to exist. This is a VERY unwieldy title.....John Prescott could do with some work, largely due to POV complications arising from his current difficulties. But this isn't the way to go about it. Badgerpatrol 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Edit-conflict merge back and delete per Lancsalot and Badgerpatrol. It's completely unnecessary and has the potential to be a WP:POVFORK. Srose (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. If necessary, splitting of the article could be better achieved along chronological lines. Road Wizard 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Merge and delete is not an available option. The choices are Keep, Delete or 'Merge and redirect'. TerriersFan 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if it's really necessary to erect a redirect for a title that is very, very unlikely to ever be searched for, but redirects are cheap, I guess. Badgerpatrol 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason that 'Delete and Merge' is not an option is that it destroys the edit history. Delete is fine as is Keep but if you want to merge it has to be 'Merge and Redirect' for that reason not for any searching benefits. This has been discussed on AfD recently. TerriersFan 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Some thoughts. This section was starting to overwhelm the original article. It was becomming hard to navigate around the article. There was certainly no intention to 'sanitise' the article; the new article is clearly linked and the link can be made more prominent if required. Inevitably, the section is going to get much longer, and the problem worsening.

It certainly is not a content fork - the guidelienes say:

'Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material.'

The criticism of the title is a matter of no importance; it was chosen to try to be NPOV. If the length is truely of any import then it can be renamed John Prescott: controversies or whatever.

There is no point in saying that the article needs attention or this or that section needs spinning off unless an editor is prepared to do the work.

If this section is simply merged back then not only will the problem remain; it will get worse. What is needed is a concrete proposal backed up by some editorial action.

Let me emphasise that I will lose no sleep whatever happens to this article. If the split is undone; so be it but unless someone else is prepared to take an initiative then an article on a major political figure will progressively decline. TerriersFan 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - On balance, I think that TerriersFan's arguments hold true. Merging this section back will more than double the length of the article. If any of the dissenting editors be bold and Badgerpatrol spins out topics or Road Wizard splits the article on chronological lines then I will change my 'vote'. The point is that TerriersFan has identified a problem and done something about it. It is easy to criticise but less easy to do something about it. BlueValour 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently, ALL the controversies that Prescott has been involved in lie in this separate article- how therefore is the main John Prescott article NPOV? I am not criticising TF's boldness- but he has got this one wrong. For a start, from what I can see even with the controversial material back in, JP was only 34 kb- reasonably big, but hardly enormous. Moreover, WP:Article size specifically states that an adequate summary of the material must be left in the article proper after a split- this is not currently the case (and it is imply not appropriate in this case to spin out all the negative stuff anyway, in my view). John Prescott could do with some improvement, but I do not see any reason to take this kind of drastic action, although I am not criticising anyone and TF has gone about things correctly (it's particularly laudable that he advertised this AfD on the main JP talk page). It's a straw man to criticise other editors for pointing out a mistake. Badgerpatrol 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair point about the main article summary; I think that TF got that wrong - I have now expanded John Prescott#Involvement with specific events to list all the incidents and toughened the text. Nothing is now concealed! Do you agree that the main article is now NPOV? I would add that with JPs disappearance over airport terrorism, alledged links to his son's company etc to be added this is going to grow and grow! BlueValour 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The section in John Prescott is now a wikified bulletpoint-list of controversies (listed under the bizarre heading "Involvement with specific events") involving Prescott, with very brief descriptions (some of which are rather juvenile (and inaccurate), e.g. Brit Awards, 1998; dockers cool him down). I do not agree that this is an adequate summary, nor is it NPOV, and it is certainly not an improvement over what was already there. Other editors can obviously have a look at it and judge for themselves. The removal of the "controversies" section wholesale was a mistake, but one that is easily remedied at the moment by re-merging the recently excised material. If the two articles remain separate, the problem is really going to grow and grow. Badgerpatrol 01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The controversies, particlarly the very recent controversies, were disproportionally dominating the main article in a manner that was not encyclopedic. It was right to separate them out. They are currently, and imo correctly, summarised and linked in the main article. The issue was discussed on the talk page. Viewfinder 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue was indeed discussed on the talk page- but there was no consensus for carrying out the split. Badgerpatrol 01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whether you call it a Merge or not, I say drag all this article's text - manually by cut and paste, if need be - back to John Prescott and trim it down to size, then Delete this article. Articles about ultra-controversial people like Ann Coulter and Tom Cruise manage to get along just fine without branching off into a separate article for their controversies. wikipediatrix 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, keeping all the information. "Controversy" is what politicians are about, so I don't see much of a point in a split between a head article about a politician and an article about their argumentative positions taken, public conduct, or private conduct that reflects on their prudence or leadership. This is all politics; it's why politicians are notable. Standing alone, this page is almost devoid of context; I had to read down a ways before I even figured out what country he was from. Merge it back and save all the referenced information. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to John Prescott, summarise the whole thing as this is unencyclopedic, unless cleanup. We don't need a single article for controversies of a politicain. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the split was raised on the talk page. A point against it was posted, to which Terriers Fan responded. No further posts against the move were forthcoming over the next few days, so the move was in order. If the move is now to be reverted, then that is OK provided the material involved is heavily trimmed. If we are to retain this sort of material in high volume then its place is in separate articles. Viewfinder 18:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to start an argument, and simply for the sake of accuracy, your "over the next few days" comment is not quite correct. The split was carried out a little over 24 hours after Terriers Fan's 2nd comment. However, I am not sure as to what bearing the timings of comments would have on this discussion. Road Wizard 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Content belongs in the main John Prescott article, preferably with judicious trimming. Espresso Addict 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to John Prescott per Smerdis of Tlon, with editing and trimming if needed. Should the article be kept, I would suggest moving it to a title such as "John Prescott controversies". "Involved with events" seems as ambiguous a title as the "Montgomery Burns Award For Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence". SliceNYC 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete outright or Merge to John Prescott, with ample editing and trimming. This disorganized list of controvies Prescott has been involved in is too POV and attackish for Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename as it's currently a horrible title. Something along the lines of John Prescott controversies. The article could do with cleaning up but Prescott is well-known in the UK more as a figure of fun than for his serious career so an article should exist. If it were to be merged back, the incidents themselves would swamp the main article. MLA 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to John Prescott; "specific events" is a bit vague reason to split an article. If kept, has to be renamed. I was surprised this article didn't start with "John Prescott's involvement with specific events (2006) is a postmodern murder mystery novel written by..." =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to the main article per, especially, wikipediatrix. Eusebeus 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful digest. Merging would affect the balance of the mian article.IXIA 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. - 81.179.119.58 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything in here appears referenced. Odd name for an article, but since it's a split off from an existing article, that explains it. The guy is notable enough, and it appears that the events in this article are reasonably noteworty too. Herostratus 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - in view of the debate that the name of this article has caused it may be of interest for me to explain to where it came from. The Isaac Newton series of articles is generally used as an example of good naming conventions. The subsidary articles start Isaac Newton's; for example Isaac Newton's early life and achievements. Hence I extrapolated to John Prescott (not that the two are comparable :-) ). I also wanted to avoid a POV title such as 'controversies' in the hope that the succesful intervention by Prescott in an event or incident can also be included. Having said all that, the mood of the Community is obviously for a title that is much shorter and snappier. My inclination, if this article is kept, is John Prescott: Contentious events which is briefer without being too POV. TerriersFan 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that merging all the information back into the main article would greatly affect its balance. It's well referenced and I believe the detail is encyclopedic and warranted. Changing the title to TerriersFan's suggestion would be fine, still remain NPOV, and I agree be more descriptive and less unwieldy. TransUtopian 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused- remerging this information with John Prescott affects the balance of that article- but removing it wholesale somehow does not have the same effect? Badgerpatrol 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete.This is a pretty obvious hatchet job - a list of all the controverseries without any balancing achievements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arce (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Marinelli

Delete. WP:BIO

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear to make it for WP:BIO and isn't linked from any club articles. Perhaps someone in Australia has heard of him and can assert some notability before the article is deleted. StuffOfInterest 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NN 17-year old soccer player. Dionyseus 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just to be sure I entered his name in an Australian media database and got this result "No results were found." He isn't playing in the A-league or in a state league but in a local competition as this article in the Whyalla newspaper shows. [13]. Further, that article doesn't mention Marinelli. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn, fails to meet WP:BIO. - Longhair 08:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Roisterer 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete he is a suburban player in the Adelaide league.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:14, 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 keep. This is probably something that fell off a previous day's AfD log, but strong enough claims of notability have been mentioned that a clear consensus to keep has emerged, therefore I see no point in letting this AfD continue 5 more days - it started at the beginning of this month and hasn't ended yet?! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Keathley

Non-notable, poorly written. JyriL ^talk 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Note I've been bold and moved him to Kevin Keathley (from Kevin keathley). Yomangani^talk 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rangek 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I can't judge his notability in basketball terms but he has been named coach of the year. Poor writing isn't a reason for deletion (I've cleaned it up a little) Yomangani 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Yomangani, and that he is a coach in a professional league. hateless 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Kevin Keathley (i.e. keep). -AED 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — per Yomangani & hateless, and Move per AED. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Move, Cleanup as per AED and Yomangani. Also can we find the citations for those awards. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I would just move the page to the new title, but I'm not sure whether that'll break this AfD, so I won't...— Gary Kirk | ^talk! 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete His award is legitimate [14], but the ABA 2000 is just a backwater minor league, and his only college experience has been with no-name jucos[15]. I suggest merging the information to a new page about the Kentucky Colonels (revival), who are distinct from the team that played in the 1970s. Plenty of minor league teams have articles, but very few individual players or coaches. Zagalejo 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Yomangani. Professional league coach and author. Yamaguchi先生 09:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 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 speedy close - bring to WP:MFD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Lebanon/temp

Double duplicate of POV Content Fork Nimur 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lebanon/Temp

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 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 redirect - which makes the debate moot since at time of closing the article it redirects to Hulk Hogan Metamagician3000 11:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Hogan (TV)

Delete. Linda is not a star. The only reason she has a page is because she married Hulk Hogan and is in Hogan Knows Best. Nothing else. Maybe if she writes a book or comes out with a CD, we can give her her own page but until then, delete this page.MgHoneyBee 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree on the fact that Linda Hogan is not a star as she is one of the stars from Hulk Hogan Knows Best which is a successful show, I don't think anyone is going to bother to look at this page or correct it. Even though she's a star and she is well-known and famous, that doesn't mean she is a big star to people. Linda Hogan IS a star but not a big star and if she does bigger things that there can be more info on for a page, then we can give her this page. Right now, the page has basically no information and no one is going to be interested in looking at it. I say, get rid of it. Tonetare 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

REDIRECT Redirect this to Hulk Hogan's since they are married and she has not done anything to deserve a page besides be in a reality show with her husband which does NOT make her a star no matter who knows her or how many red carpets she goes to.MgHoneyBee 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

LMAO at no matter who knows her or how many red carpets she goes to. That was pretty funny. But anyway, the WWE has about a trillion fans even though, lets be honest, WWE is going downhill, but they still have lots of fans. A star is just someone who is famous which means well-known. If Hogan Knows Best has good ratings it means lots of people watch it, probably all the WWE fans and some. Linda Hogan is well-known now and that's the bottomline. However, she is not real real well-known. not a big BIG star like Whoopi Goldberg or her husband for that matter. I agreed with you to get rid of this page so lets leave it at that. Tonetare 07:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Hogan's article - I have merged the relevant content already --Trödel 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Blanking and redirecting seems a bit premature. It seems that her notability is in common with her family (the TV show, the film), so I'm not opposing a redirect, but are there many people with IMDb profiles that do not have stubs here? Gimmetrow 09:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per above. -- Kicking222 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. wikipediatrix 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Compare Linda Hogan to Sharon Osbourne, also the wife of a star on a reality show. However, Sharon has multiple independent claims to notariety. Keep Linda Hogan as a redirect until and unless she establishes some independent notability. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Re-direct to Hulk Hogan. So far her only claim to fame is "Hogan Knows Best". Sharon Osbourne had her own talk show(even though it didnt't last long). Maybe after she has been in a movie or two she can have her own article. TJ Spyke 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close it is now a redirect so there is no artilce to delete. --Edgelord 22:07, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of UWA Canadian Championship reigns by length

If it gets deleted, then all the other title reign lengths pages should be deleted. So in short, please don't delete it, took alot of work getting the exact time for each length.

• Delete. It's a non-notable wrestling title, it doesn't need a list here. RobJ1981 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a non-notable title. TJ Spyke 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Keep, but someone needs to explain what the title is(i.e. what organization it is in, that sorta thing). TJ Spyke 04:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ALL professional wrestling title reign pages should be kept. Clay4president 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• UWA is actually becoming very notable, as it is nearly if not as popular as IWS. Terry 4k 11:18 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with other UWA Canadian Championship list articles to List of UWA Canadian Champions. Thryduulf 00:20, 30 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 - 'interesting' often turns out not to be a strong argument for inclusion (Wikipedia's open editing nature means many people create pages, often lists, which they find 'interesting' but are later found not to be suitable for an encyclopaedia), but there aren't any arguments against inclusion presented here either. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by age

Non-notable useless trivia.

• Delete. Age lists are non-notable, redundant and useless trivia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Useful information and interesting. It's not redundant because this info doesn't exist anywhere else on WP. TJ Spyke 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I find it very interesting, just because someone doesn't find interest in it doesn't mean other's won't. Since the whole deal with WCW was that they only pushed old stars, I like to see who broke the mold (Giant), who was the oldest, ect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.14.138 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, I guess. It's pertty marginal since achieving the championship is a show-biz rather than athletic accomplishment. Cruft, but WP:NOT paper, so I don't see as it's harming anyone. Herostratus 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with other WCW World Heavyweight Championship list articles to List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions. Thryduulf 00:21, 30 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bus routes in London

Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). Detailed information such as this can not be easily maintained as bus routes and frequencies change. Information on the areas served by buses should be on a general page such as Buses in London, with a link to detailed information of bus timetables etc that is readily available from the Transport for London's website MrHarper 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: These articles provide an insight not just to where they are now, but where they have been. It is common knowledge bus routes are changing but this adds to the history. I think the bus routes are not really showing to be timetables either and are constantly expanded. Also, in what way are they directories? They do not show adresses and contact numbers or any other similar info. Those are not my only reasons.Simply south 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a good index for the route articles (which have themselves survived AFD). Furthermore, the information is not set out in the style of a timetable (which may be cited as criterion for deletion); instead it shows which operators control the various routes and their scope (start and end points). The information, in this format, is not available elsewhere. Mrsteviec 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep London bus routes do not change that often, and this list, with just start and end points, is not that detailed making it easy to maintain. It does not contain frequencies as mentioned in the deletion request. It is an efficient way of presenting information not available in this format from the TfL website. How exactly would "Information on the areas served by buses should be on a general page such as Buses in London" work? Sounds like one very long and complicated page to replace a simple, easily used (and maintained) list. Page94 10:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Most of the article seems to simply be a directory of unverified and (possibly) non-notable facts, which has presumably been sourced directly from bus timetables. If that was all there was, then I'd recommend deleting the article for breaching WP:NOT in several ways (mere collection of public doman material, directory, indiscriminate information). However, a part of the article is a list of links to articles. The linked articles have recently survived the deletion process (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1, though it is worth noting that despite that AFD those articles still all look to be OR), so can be regarded for the sake of this AFD as valid articles. So while I think that this sort of article shouldn't normally belong on Wikipedia, as this article is a valid list, linking to a large number of articles, it should be kept. It's also worth noting that it, and all the bus route articles, are in need of some references. Hopefully this AFD process will motivate someone familiar with the subject to reference these articles. --Mako 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia is not a compilation of all information that exists anywhere.. A category already exists indexing the notable bus routes. Therefore this list is redundant. --Mako 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per proposal, WP:NOT a directory. Garrie 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If it becomes a list of related articles then that would be better served by a category, Category:London Bus Routes or similar

Comment What would you know, the category already exists: Category:London bus routes. Maybe the list is redundant then ... -- Mako 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - per Page94. (JROBBO 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
• keep This is an important navigation/feeder page to the individual bus route pages. Without it, people will not be able to find individual pages such as London Buses route 9 (Heritage) Ohconfucius 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Page94. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: It appears this debate was not listed at WP:AfD before this point

• Delete current indiscrimate list. Delete all uninteresting / unencyclopedic bus route articles as well. Make a list (or keep current one) of important bus routes if some list of the remaining articles is needed. Not all info, however correct and well researched, is fit for Wikipedia. Fram 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think. I'm in favour of articles on train and metro lines but I think I draw the line at buses - although my local routes might be interesting to me because I have travelled on them, there doesn't appear to be any genuine notability for bus routes. MLA 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Bus routes? C'mon... no encyclopedic value there... Wickethewok 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lists of bus route, airline schedules, train routes or garbage pickup schedules are instantly obsolete and inaccurate. Saying "They don't change that often" means that they do change. Then Wikipedia has incorrect information. It is better to include a link from the article on the city in question to the actual webpages of the transit companies. This makes as little sense as including the London phone directory in Wikipedia. General comments about the history and nature of mass transportation in a city are encyclopedic, but this isn't. Edison 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Articles on London buses have survived nomination after nomination after nomination and yet somebody else comes along and says "It's not factual enough". I, along with numerous other editors have worked hard to ensure that they are, so if you want to get rid of this list you might as well get rid of List of hospitals in England and other such lists. This should remain and continually be added to.sonicKAI 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, not every London bus route has its own article. Yet.sonicKAI 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep useful and maintainable; categories and lists are complementary. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Page94. SliceNYC 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment regarding keeping these type of articles up to date. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a schedule or guide, but an encyclopedia. As such, if a list of bus routes is encyclopedic it shouldn't only include current routes, but should also include historical routes (which would arguably be more useful than a list of current routes, as current routes are easily found on bus companies' websites). -- Mako 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete TJ Spyke 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete this is not the London Transport website. Eusebeus 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Encyclopaedic. Useful summary of the bus routes, both present and historical, leading to individual pages on each bus route. Gives immediate information (start/end locations, operator name) over that provided by the category. Mike Peel 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The information as presented is encyclopaedic. The fact that it has been maintained for many months (in the face of repeated calls for deletion) proves that this is maintainable. Page94, Mako and Mike Peel all also provide very good reasons for keeping these articles. Thryduulf 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Q0 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Please keep this article. It gives infomation which is quite accurate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.146.229 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. WP is not bus company website and has no chance to keep fluid content uptodate. In the past such "articles" had been deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read a previous comment by sonicKAI you will see that articles about London bus routes have been put on AFD before and have survived. I am not sure about other bus routes but it appears there is a precident to keep London routes. You are going to have to come up with another agrument to delete. --Edgelord 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Many other articles have also gone through AfD process and survived as well. [16], [17], [18], [19] and many others. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: as has been stated earlier, the bus routes in London do not change very often. Also the fact that the article is up-to-date and has continuously been so shows that your assumption that it cannot be kept up-to-date is wrong. There are many articles that most people would not even consider deleting that are not being kept up-to-date (e.g. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (President of Brazil), Ryan Air, September 29, 2003 and Republika Srpska all contain the phrase "expected in 2005" used in the future tense). Thryduulf 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In an old city like London these are the direct descendants of trams. --SPUI (T - C) 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per sonicKAI there appears to be a precident for article on London bus routes to be kept. --Edgelord 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This belongs in a travel wiki. Vegaswikian 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't a timetable, it's a useful compendium of routes, along with links to dozens (hundreds?) of related articles. Could be further enhanced by adding historical routes now discontinued, as has been done in similar articles. While this information may seem trivial to some, it is useful to others, and doesn't detract from the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of people are willing to make sure it remains up-to-date. CarolGray 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and keep it up to date Y control 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Another comment. As I mentioned above, keeping it "up to date" shouldn't be the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. If something is worthy of being included in Wikipedia it doesn't matter if that thing is active or not (for example we have articles on topics such as Julius Caesar and Battle of Waterloo, even though those things do not exist today). So if today's London bus routes are worth listing then so are all cancelled London bus routes. -- Mako 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The London bus route structure has been remarkably stable, and we have been able to have articles on individual routes because of it. As such, listing them together appears to be completely justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per sjakkalle these routes are stable and there is good precedent Yuckfoo 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I find some of these {afd} discussions contain votes that are justified (paraphrasing) "well, I never heard of it, so it can't be notable." -- Geo Swan 22:47, 30 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 moot - temp article already deleted by the time this got listed. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louie Gohmert/Temp

Delete - There is now a finished article, Louie Gohmert, on the same subject. Badbilltucker 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 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 13:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian studies

Article serves no useful purpose. Apparently a political activist. -- Fyslee 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not linked from any articles and appears to be more O.R. than anything. StuffOfInterest 14:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/o prejudice, unless seriously revised: unhelpful article about a legitimate subject. The author seems to have a quarrel with the claimed nationhood of the Republic of Macedonia or its claim to the name of Macedonia. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as Smerdis of Tlön. The current article reads like an attack page. The subject is worthwhile for an entry so no objection to its recreation as properly sourced article. -- Whpq 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete mostly per Smerdis of Tlön (not sure about the quarrel bit). There is potential for an article on Macedonian Studies, but this isn't it. Yomangani^talk 15:28, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Made2Manage_Systems

Delete Vanity, NN CORP, Sleepyhead is related to the organization Justdoingmyjob 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Some ERP company Nothingpersonal 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as this appears to be a bad-faith nomination involving multiple sockpuppet accounts. Notice how strange the history of the article is during the addition of the AfD notice: no less than two new accounts and one IP worked together to properly create the AfD notice. (five edits from here to here). "Just doing my job, nothing personal" is a transparent pair of socks, and the implication is that someone was hired to get this article removed from Wikipedia. Also notice this edit and this edit made to the AfD of a competing company (also brimming with sockpuppets), after which the same accounts nominated this article for deletion. Note that I will happily cast my vote based on the merits of the article when sockpuppets aren't crawling all over it. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepMerge with Onxy Software. Press coverage at [20], [21], [22],[23] satisfied WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's big enough to buy publicly-listed companies like Onyx Software Corporation, and it's getting press coverage like Ohnoitsjamie listed above, it's notable enough to keep. Kickaha Ota 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've merged in the information on Onyx Software Corporation as discussed in the Onyx AfD, and rewritten the rest of the M2M article a bit.Kickaha Ota 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I've also tried to add more details on the acquisition spree that has made it notable in the last few years. Kickaha Ota 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'll say that I think there's enough coverage to keep the article for now under the current standards, but I really think Wikipedia needs a tougher standard for these corporations. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - passes WP:CORP although the article could use some additional tidying. -- Whpq 15:18, 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 categories are none of our business here. CFD is that way. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Metal keyboardists

This category is inactive, the category is metal keyboardists now is Category:Heavy metal keyboardists that best fit in Category:Heavy metal musicians by instrument. So this category must be speedy deleted.

• Speed Delete, A better category exist. --Neo139 05:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Metal keyboardists

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close and move to WP:CfD. -- Kicking222 11:45, 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 13:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NWF Championship

• Delete. Non-notable title. RobJ1981 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - ALL pro wrestling reign pages should be kept. If you delete one you delete them all. Clay4president 17:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lesser promotions (and titles of the promotions) simply don't belong on Wikipedia. There has to be a line somewhere, otherwise there will be each and EVERY promotion ever on Wikipedia. Put lesser things like this on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this appears to be a NN title. TJ Spyke 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable championship. --- Lid 07:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pro wrestling is a very very small sport in Norway. I have been wanting to delete Erik Isaksen and Gromguten for a while now. Could they perhaps be included in the nomination? Punkmorten 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable title. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:19, 26 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetSuite

WP:CORP, Advertisement, protected by Sleepyhead, no real content Nothingpersonal 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. WP:POINT nomination. See 58.71.254.145 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Nothingpersonal (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavelet.biz. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is a joke. Author of article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wavelet.biz is trying to delete other article. NetSuite is very notable so remove this afd asap. --Sleepyhead 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is subjective. Looks like advertisement to me . 58.71.235.116 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 13:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use some rewriting, but appears to have sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:SOFTWARE. Kickaha Ota 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Non-trivial, media coverage satisfied WP:CORP; [24], [25], etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. StuffOfInterest 12:41, 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 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Pink Ponies

Keep - Most keenspot comics have their own entry, and although this is a new comic, it still deserves an article. There will also be more information about the article soon. ISD 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic. Perhaps transwiki to an appropriate site such as Comixpedia. — Haeleth Talk 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, extremely new and non-notable webcomic. Association with Keenspot does not automatically confer notability. wikipediatrix 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete RobJ1981 14:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per Wikipediatrix Dionyseus 22:44, 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 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omaakar

The article is like an add. It should be deleted. as per WP:ADS. Chirag 04:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Total spam. wikipediatrix 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam . advertisment. non notable company with no mention in the media. --Ageo020 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Lost^(talk) 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Add the prices while you are at it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:47, 26 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. - Bobet 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paghman saadat

There appears to be no independent corroboration of the existence of the Paghman Saadat. Biographical material on Ikbal Ali Shah and his offspring and their offspring should be moved to their respective pages. The article appears to have been written mainly to promote Idries Shah, while avoiding the dispute about his claims. Jedermann 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why not merge the articles. If not a very large amount of accurate information (which is what an encyclopedia is about) will be lost, which amounts to vandalising. (Lunarian 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC))
• Already suggested on the discussion page. No response.

  BTW, how is Wikipedia to determine whether the information on a trickster figure is accurate and not deliberate misinformation repeated by uncritical hagiographers? Idries Shah's statements about his origins, early years and activities were notoriously inaccurate. He grew up in England from 1927, but allowed his follower Elizabeth Hall to repeat his myth that he first went there in 1960. And so on... Jedermann 09:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• And so on, and so on. But I doubt Wikipedia is going to determine.

  You are, by refinening your studious judgement. "Jedermann" means "Everybody" (Elckerlyke), no? So do not worry. (Lunarian 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

• I must apologize for budding in again. I had to verify something that may be to the point about the article under discussion. When the links are carefully examined it follows that Idries Shah was accepted as an advisor for the Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge (ISHK) alongside James Burke, William C. Dement, Edward T. Hall, Rene Dubos, Paul Ralph Ehrlich, Jonas Salk, Hans Selye, Roger Sperry. I have ommitted Doris Lessing for reasons of sensitivity among critics. It is not up to me to judge who among them are the real "posers". I hope my remark may help to take the same care for other details mentioned.

  Always willing to bend an elbow, yours sincerly (Lunarian 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

• The Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge (ISHK = ishq) was set up by Bob Ornstein, Shah's deputy in the USA. Is it surprising that IS was 'accepted as an advisor', or that they invited him to speak there, or that they gave him an 'award' for so doing? This article should be deleted. Ridding it of promotional material would leave next to nothing, IMO. Jedermann 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Are you privy also to Robert Ornsteins tenure at Stanford University or was that a bum ride ? I doubt that promotion is going to be of much avail to IS in the position he reclined to. The ideas he proposed deserve attention. But ideas you should be generous to. Have you noticed the article integrates ideas on Max Müller, Thomas Merton, on Viktor Frankl? Did you know about Reza Arasteh?

  If I am not mistaken the bibliography refers to the biography of Robert Graves that carries all the criticism you need, if you really want to balance your opinion.(Lunarian 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

• For the last time, the place for presenting I. Shah's ideas is on his own page - not in a manufactured POV-fork. On a point of English, 'mentioning' Mueller and Frankl does not amount to 'integrating' them. The first sentence really sets the intellectual tone, since Muhammad had no male line of descent. Jedermann 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• You are right of course. The english is not perfect. And, "...males accepted as descendants..." it ought to have been (Sayyid).

  What is a man to say about this ? Delete and get it over with, I guess. But since I cheer for the weasel I still say: do not delete. And since you promise to stay out of the picture, I will too. It's oblivion for both of us anyway.(Lunarian 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable based on the number of hits on google most of which are from wikipedia. Maybe a merge into something? The article is so confusing I have no idea what it could be merged into. If kept, it needs a total cleanup. Vegaswikian 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent text. Mukadderat 19:01, 28 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 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelic transhumanism

Should the article Psychedelic transhumanism be deleted due to its lack of notability? --Loremaster 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• That rationale is not useful. What notability criteria are being applied? How does the subject fail to satisfy them? Please explain why you think that this article is unverifiable or original research. Uncle G 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only 12 unique hits for "psychedelic transhumanism" [26] - not enough secondary sources to meet reliability and verification standards. --Trödel 14:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete term was coined too recently to be notable. Needs better sources. Danny Lilithborne 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, playing with words like other items on the VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No one was playing with words. Although he may not be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, Paul Hughes is an interviewed advocate who identifies himself as a psychedelic transhumanist. --Loremaster 23:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remix Secondary Characters

Similar to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remix Supporting Characters, should be deleted following Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which states that "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NOR. --Satori Son 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. wikipediatrix 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 14:13, 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 speedy keep, nominator didn't create this page after eight (8) solid days. This is not the way to nominate stuff for AfD, folks. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Green Goblin

Why is it being deleted?

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 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, an advert with no discussion of the notability of the subject of the article.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco Bay Psychotherapy Center

An advert of sorts for a psychotherapy center which, as any psychotherapy center has its own approach to psychotherapy. For the same reasons I am also nominating the Sequoia Psychotherapy Center. Pascal.Tesson 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both The San Francisco Bay Psychotherapy Center was open for ~1 year and the Sequoia Psychotherapy Center has only been open since March, 2005. Neither institution has any hits on Google News, so it appears they both fail WP:CORP. -- Scientizzle 16:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: founding editor appears to favour redirecting to Kevin F. McCready (although his notability is not entirely clearcut either). Rockpocket 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I prefer redirecting to Kevin F. McCready, but would agree with deletion as suggested for both San Francisco Bay Psychotherapy Center and Sequoia Psychotherapy Center. Svartulfr1 1:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 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 Redirected to Terms. NawlinWiki 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific terms

This page already covered in page names "terms" M.manary 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, three doors down. Uncle G 12:56, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Serbian Liberation Movement and Serbian Liberation Army

I have failed to find any evidence that this group exists; it appears to have been created as an attempt to promote either a fictional organisation, or a non-notable political splinter group. There appears to have been minor groups calling themselves the SLM or SLA in the past, but nothing connected with these people. Shimgray | talk | 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that the only contributions of the two editors, SLM SLA (talk • contribs) and Sedlar (talk • contribs), were to create this page and a forest of redirects from deliberately misleading titles (Serbian Agriculture, Democracy in Serbia) pointing to it. Shimgray | talk | 11:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Made up, SPAM, and/or Original Research. StuffOfInterest 12:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Also the article has been recreated at Serbia Liberation Movement / Army (SLM/A), along with other Serbian articles redirecting to this page. Wildthing61476 02:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete meets CSD because it is reposted content that was already deleted. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• SD A7 and G4 I nominated a similar page (WildThing notes it) that was found to be a copyvio as well. If the two are the same, then SD both of them. My page has been Copyvio tagged. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:05, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Aaronson

Notability Casper2k3 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete comes pretty close to patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete he's a terrific athlete. Danny Lilithborne 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO, and no verifiable sources provided. -- Whpq 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline A7. He named his Porsche, and thinks that's worthy of inclusion here? Sheesh! Fan-1967 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per Whpq. Dionyseus 01:58, 24 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)  15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mushroom album

Don't see the point of this article... --Dijxtra 11:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it is a "gallery" of mushroom photos with only one photo. No point in keeping this when the photo can be in mushroom. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm with AJMS above. -- Kicking222 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Danny Lilithborne 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Commons is thataway. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:19, 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 DELETE. Although the Delete comments did not greatly outnumber the Merge comments, no less than three different articles were suggested as the merge target. Project Orion (lunar program) (and the other two articles) appear to cover this well without needing the small amount of information in this article grafted onto them. Herostratus 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Orion (lunar program)

Name and information is incorrect. Orion is the official name now of the Crew Exploration Vehicle[27], not of the entire program. The program is called "Project Constellation". StuffOfInterest 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As nominated. StuffOfInterest 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete JACooks 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and revise. The information in the article is sourced; some of it's just out of date (so put a "current events" template on the article, and update it accordingly). We have articles for every single Space Shuttle, so an article about the Orion vehicle itself is certainly warranted. --Christopher Thomas 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We do have an article for the vehicle, Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will be renamed to "Orion (something or other)" at some point. --StuffOfInterest 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Merge with Orion (spacecraft), now that the renaming has occurred. --Christopher Thomas 03:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with the article Crew exploration vehicle which needs to be renamed to include the name Orion. If an article on Orion is deleted, another will have to be created. Think of this as a stub. This is as valid an article as the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury projects. If the title needs fixing, then edit boldly. Countless billions of tax dollars will be spent on getting heroic spacemen to the moon in the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle to distract us from problems here on earth and to enhance our national prestige. The new project is expected to take 14 years with 21st century technology, so they can walk around and pick up rocks. Compare this to the Apollo project which took 8 years with 1960's technology. Edison 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --OfficialUser 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC) It isn't called Project Orion, it is called Project Constellation, and the Orion CEV. You can incorperate some of this information into the current Crew Exploration Vehicle page, but it is wrong to call it project orion, and the CEV page is already quite well done.

This is OfficialUser (talk • contribs)'s third edit, with nine edits total as of this writing. --Christopher Thomas 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Project Orion is an incorrect name per nom. Rillian 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Constellation is not a Project, it is a Program. Project Orion, like Project Ares falls under the Constellation Program. Orion is both the CEV and Project name, ref: Orion Project Manager Skip Hatfield. Like Apollo, when crews launch they will be aboard Orion Command Modules fly Orion missions, not Constellation vehicles or flights. Collectspace 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Collectspace (talk • contribs)'s fourth edit. --Christopher Thomas 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with either one of these two articles: Project Constellation and/or Orion (spacecraft). Bigtop 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: this article is most likely the result of an unfortunate combination of the terms Project Constellation and Crew Module Orion at the time of gossip about this. Even if this information turns out to be correct later, it is unreferenced speculation for now. Nick Mks 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't see anything in Project Orion (lunar program) that isn't already in Orion (spacecraft). Since it's incorrectly named, and by far the lesser of the two articles, just get rid of this one. --Mnemeson 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge or delete per nom. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:51, 1 September 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 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario

This article was split off from Oakville, Ontario as it was an ever increasing list taking over the article. I was the editor who made the split and created the article, but the entries have been added over time during its original incarnation in the main article so I was not sure that a speedy delete was appropriate and tagged it with a PROD. There is already a Category:People from Oakville, Ontario, and I've updated articles with tags to match them up. Considering this list duplicates the category, this list should be deleted. The original PROD was contested, so I've taken this to AFD for discussion. -- Whpq 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wickethewok 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back in to Oakville, Ontario. Most city articles have a list of notable residents. BoojiBoy 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment the Oakville, Ontario article currently contains a refernce to Category:People from Oakville, Ontario, but if the list is to remain, then it should stand as a separate article with a reference from the main article, as the list starts to dominate the article. -- Whpq 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LIST. Nominator presents no real argument for deletion. WilyD 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the reason is its duplication with an existing category. Double maintenance. -- Whpq 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists and categories do not serve the same function, especially in cases like this. No duplication means no reason presented for deletion. WilyD 15:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, guessing games suck, let people choose what they want to read. Kappa 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There aren't that many names in this article or the category and it is not an unusually significant city. True we have similar situations with things like List of people from Portland, Maine, but most of those end up for review. Lists can provide added information in what their relationship is to the topic, but I don't think that would be too important here.--T. Anthony 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Residents and former residents is a common theme in city articles - for better or for worse, deleting this serves no purpose other than to mess up to Oakville article. WilyD 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to the fact that similar lists such as List of people from San Francisco have been kept after going through the AFD process. --Edgelord 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because the list actually is better than the category because it includes the reason people are notable, not just their names, the way the category mainly would. GRBerry 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lists like these are really just categories in article clothing. The article on the person should say why the person is notable, so a list with a notation is really unnecessary. Further, given the mobility of people, not just now but in previous decades, there's really no value in these kind of lists because the people on these lists can be "from" many, many places. Agent 86 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:LIST to find out why this argument is wrong. Lists serve a function that categories and consitutant articles do not - especially good lists. WilyD 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Read it before I posted this. LIST is a guideline, not gospel. I do not think that this is a good list or that my argument is "wrong". Agent 86 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • List is a guideline, but it does explain the difference between lists and categories, and rather than rehash it here, it's easier to point you to a place where the explanation is already eloquently explained. This is not really a "good list" in the sense that it couldn't make "good list" status, but we don't delete articles because they're not yet up to good article status - it doesn't make sense to hold lists to a higher standard. Given the facts of the case, your argument remains wrong. WilyD 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify, I understood you to be using "good list" in the vernacular and not WP sense, and responded using the same sense of the phrase (and please don't construe it that I'm saying the quality of an article is a basis for deletion, because it's not). That said, I happen to disagree with you, and stand by my opinion on this matter. Agent 86 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I more or less, but I played a bit with the phrasing to suggest that your standards for the article are too high. WilyD 12:54, 28 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)  15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smithfield Cafe

The Smithfield Cafe is a real but thoroughly non-notable restaurant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (the comment about it being "the only establishment that serves alcohol before 10 am" is simply wrong, in addition to being completely unsourced). Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that the article is written from a non-neutral point of view, and that the link has been added to a few places it doesn't belong only serves to underscore the fact that it probably doesn't belong here. Nandesuka 11:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM WilyD 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Also, note that this page was created by User:Doctor Octagon who, to my eyes, is probably a sockpuppet of User:Young Zaphod, who has a history of inserting unsourced vanity material relating to Pittsburgh and CMU in Wikipedia. Nandesuka 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ehheh 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, agree with Nandesuka about obvious sockpuppetry. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:41, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfersome

This article was deleted through the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, and then undeleted on my request. I think this article has potential, and wanted to bring it here to see if people agree or disagree on whether it should be kept. Some of the issues and article history have already been discussed here. I will summarise in a series of comments below. Carcharoth 11:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Original creation - Article originally created following a request at "Articles for creation", as shown here. Article created by KickahaOta on 12 July 2006. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deletion proposed - Proposed deletion template added on 13 July 2006. Original comment when the proposed deletion template was added was "Advertising for a company's non-notable product. Google search for "Transfersome" turns up only some 900 results, a lot of which seem to be solely understandible by the Medical community, or are in German." This was added by Green451 with an edit summary marked as "minor" (in actual fact, prods should not be marked as minor edits). The article was deleted on 18 July 2006 by Kungfuadam. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Undeletion proposed - My original comment on this, on 23 August 2006, when deciding to ask for the article to be undeleted was "Well, I found a current medical trial involving the product. I'm not sure what the guidelines are on medical products still being tested (I know some drugs being trialled have articles), but the actual science behind it seems interesting." Steve block was kind enough to undelete the article for me on 23 August 2006, and I then nominated it for a deletion discussion the same day. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Other - See the article history for any further changes made to the article. As of time of writing, some minor cleaning up has taken place. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment It took me until the second paragraph before I had the foggiest idea what the heck this was. If its to be kept it needs serious rewriting and explanation.--Crossmr 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it more understandable now? Carcharoth 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per reason of original prod- "Advertising for a company's non-notable product. Google search for "Transfersome" turns up only some 900 results, a lot of which seem to be solely understandible by the Medical community, or are in German." --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) The 'understandable' comment is hopefully being addressed. (2) How does the results being in German affect this debate? (3) Would you be happier if the article focused on the science, rather than the product? Carcharoth 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Original PRODder comment - as the person who originally PRODded this way back when, I had no idea this would come back and cause a debate like this. I should mention that marking the ProD as minor was an accident, and I apologize for that. As for the matter of this article, I still cannot make any sense of it, and as such, I don't believe I should vote on the matter. If the article is kept, some *serious* rewriting must be done to make it understandable to the "Average Joe". Green451 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it more understandable now? Carcharoth 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it appears to have quite a bit of publications in medical journals. I don't see the article as spam, but what I do see is an article in serious need of attention from an expert, but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - from what I can make out, it is a form of medical nanotechnology used to deliver drugs across the skin by a sort of active transport mechanism. It might well be obscure, and it might well end up as a failed technology, but I think it is worth giving this one a chance. A fair bit of cleaning up, tidying of references, and wikifying has taken place, but it still needs a rewrite for readability, and it should focus on the science, not the company that developed it or even the name they've come up with for this technology. Carcharoth 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A few successful trials of this formulation have been reported in reputable English-language medical journals, independent of company publicity. Novel delivery methods for drugs is an important topic in drug discovery, and many will be proprietory. Espresso Addict 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting technology, no matter if it is proprietory or not. --WS 15:26, 24 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 as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elspec Ltd.

Originally this vanity/spam article was PRODded, but removed by the article's creator (User:Elspec/199.203.94.97). Fails WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP and is a vanity article. --Porqin 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I can smell the pork. Ohconfucius 04:26, 24 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 both as non-notable websites, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nextbox gamer radio, Nextbox radio

Prod was removed, the article doesn't seem to establish notability, and it fails WP:WEB. --Porqin 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I have added Nextbox radio to the discussion as a copy of the original article made by the same author. -- Merope 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:08, 24 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Liverpool F.C.

Fails WP:CORP, at 12th position, notability for English football clubs is 10th position. Club is also not even in existence anymore. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Keep per discussion below, particularly Chris's argument. NawlinWiki 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand because of their history, which included winning the Welsh Cup. Keresaspa 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - they played for a number of years in the Northern Premier League, which is a level 7 league (and in fact would have been even higher than that at the time they played in it as the Conference North had not been formed). I believe that clubs should be allowed to retain their articles if they have played at a level higher than 11 but then dropped below that level - if Manchester United were to drop to level 11 through some extremely unlikely sequence of events, they wouldn't cease to be notable. Also, if a club was notable in "life", I don't feel they cease to become notable if they subsequently fold. ChrisTheDude 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, of course that should be the case, but the article didn't make it terribly clear, however, that it had been a 7th-level team, and it was unfortunately swept up in my attempt to clean up the football cruft. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - winning the Welsh Cup makes them notable enough IMHO. Qwghlm 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Whoa there! Where did this "10th position" criterion come from? Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability makes no mention of any such criterion. Uncle G 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

10th level (i.e. in the English league structure), not 10th position. It is a consensus among the community contributing to football articles that clubs above that level are inherantly notable. Clubs below that level have to have added reasons for notability (e.g. history, as I would argue is the case re South Liverpool F.C.) (see many many other afd discussions). Robotforaday 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's here ChrisTheDude 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The level 10 criterion is one that hasn't exactly been carved in stone yet; also, all it means is that clubs above that level are inherently notable - it does not mean that all clubs below that level are inherently non-notable. — sjorford++ 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable past as per numerous News of the World Football Annuals. Catchpole 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable past and the club still exists at the second level (12 level overall) of the Liverpool County Premier League. --Balerion 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Winner of Welsh Cup, and also arguably important in their time as a direct provider of numerous first team players to Liverpool F.C. Robotforaday 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Historical notability makes this a bona fide article -- Alias Flood 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Historically notable, they used to be one of the biggest non-league clubs in England. Needs expanding, though.--Stevefarrell 19:06, 27 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)  14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IIT Kanpur Street play Society

Non-notable society. The information is also unverifiable as google search gives no relevant results. PROD removed by an editor. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, drama club at one college, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Porqin 14:08, 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.