Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:WikiProject reform User-warning templates strawpoll Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Credentials Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Draft unified account policy Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

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

The result was delete. 1ne 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaymer Pride Flag

There is no such flag. It is a complete fabrication. It was started by someone on a gaymer message board and then posted here. Therefore, it is not notable and is original thought. --Pinkkeith 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete The Gaymer page that includes the picture of the flag states that it is unofficial. There is no information here that isn't already in the Gaymer article. Delete without prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. --RoninBK_ETC 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary-definition tautology ("an ABC is a C used by A to indicate B"), and unverifiable per WP:V since no reliable sources per WP:RS will be found. Barno 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Neological gaymer-cruft. --Czj 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:V and [[WP:Cruft]; and before it's raised here, no this isn't gay bashing.SkierRMH 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- Thanks for reminding me.... ;) Spawn Man 06:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Perfectly covered on the gaymer article. --MECU≈talk 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Is that a picture of two testicles or am I mistaken? Spawn Man 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
DeleteIf this information belongs on Wikipedia at all (which is doubtful) it belongs on the Gaymer article, and it's already there. There's no justification for a separate article. This is just a screen icon which is used in a very limited context. OfficeGirl 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. - Mig ^(Talk) 01:02, 19 November 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 WP:SNOW + already been deleted + officegirl's comments, something fishy here and I see no harm in deleting the article. W.marsh 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koji Yokogawa

Seems to have been deleted twice before [1]. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Previous deletions were for lack of content and notability. This may still not reflect notablility, but there's content this time; it's not a repost. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Good point, it is not a direct re-post (but similar), I meant to include not notable. Is WP:PROF or WP:PROFTEST a fair test as they aren't policy? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment They are "fair" in the sense that they reflect current practice on AfD. Anyways, he or his area doesn't seem to be notable enough for reliable sources to report about him (even in Japanese), so he's no better than the average professor. ColourBurst 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete — no assertion of notability. 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't look More notable than the average professor. -- Fan-1967 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete NN, per above --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with a possible protect so we don't have to delete it again in two weeks. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:PROF. JChap2007 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete failed the professor test, lock it up (protect) so it can't come back.--John Lake 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Delete per nomination. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Norosu 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — As per all. Nothing is furnished with the article to prove his notability. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per all.--Seadog 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. Spinach Dip 08:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Atlantis Hawk 10:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The problem here is that other sites are now using this article as a primary source. After a quick review, there is no evidence whatsoever that Koji Yokogawa exists, other than the WP article and sites which have cited this article. Jcam 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The comment "there is no evidence whatsoever that Koji Yokogawa exists" is refuted by the journal article cited in the Wikipedia article under discussion: "RATIONALITY OF MODULI SPACES OF PARABOLIC BUNDLES. HANS U. BODEN and KÔJI YOKOGAWA. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, Volume 59, Issue 02, April 1999, pp 461-478.doi: 10.1112/S0024610799007061." Also Googling "Ochanomizu University" Yokogawa and I find "Phys. Rev. B 61, 8496 (2000): Kobayashi - Superstructure induced ...Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Ochanomizu University, ... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank K. Yokogawa for useful discussions and forshowing us ...link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.8496" The university site is in Japanese. Too bad no one here is apparenty able to read the faculty listings there to determine whether they list him as a professor. There should be no blocking the article, since someone literate in Japanese might wish to properly document the notability of the professor. The only question is the extent of his notability, not his existence. Edison 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I believe he exists (although your source links are broken). I believe there is (or has been) some statement of notability in the article, but I don't believe he meets WP:PROFTEST or any other notability standard. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
~~WEAK delete~~ STRONG AND SPEEDIEST DELETE ASAP AND SALT THE PAGE-- Based on my searches for the subject's name with "Hodge Theory", this sentence from the article is believable: "He is considered one of the world's foremost experts on Hodge theory." But the problem is that I don't know how to find documentation of that assertion. If someone knows a source where this can be proven and provides it on the article, then we should keep. The subject is a living person apparently working in a University in Germany. To those people who are working on the article or want to keep it-- have you considered just contacting the fellow and asking him if he keeps a scrapbook of articles that have featured himself? OfficeGirl 15:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE As per my own suggestion, I sent an e-mail to Dr. Yokogawa at his university. He resonded to me immediately, saying:

Please delete the page!!!!

The contents on the page is nonsense!

I am very angry!

That just about sums it up from the foremost authority on Koji Yokogawa, Koji Yokogawa himself. That is why I am changing my vote to STRONG AND SPEEDIEST DELETE ASAP AND SALT THE PAGE. OfficeGirl 17:23, 15 November 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 both. Kimchi.sg 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMediaMatrix

Obvious spam for a start-up company (created by, big surprise, User:Imediamatrix) that gets all of 24 unique Google hits (out of 77 total). Also you can add company founder Ahmed Gomaa, who does not appear to be the historian of the same name [2]. Calton | Talk 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, blatant advert. Fe e zo (Talk) 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Both NN, spam --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, possibly speedy under advert and bio, respectively. Dooms Day349 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, spam. Probably could have been db-spam'd. --- RockMFR 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Ditto for the bio. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete — Definitely spam and advertising. Not notable at all. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. For the record, I declined to delete this under db-spam; I think the purpose in placing the article here was for advertising, but its content wasn't unsalvageable. Anyway, changed to prod but it was removed with no real effort to address the issues. Mango juice^talk 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete IMediaMatrix as spam. The corporate single purpose account is a very strong indicator of blatant spam. So tagged. As for the founder, delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam, advert and btw there's a speedy on it.--John Lake 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement (G11) Danny Lilithborne 04:31, 14 November 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 WP:SNOW delete. 1ne 06:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vasiliu Lucilius

del. nonverifiable. Hoax or cookery. The Riemann hypothesis is so immensely known in math world that published attempts of proof are discussed. `'mikkanarxi 01:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - creator of the article claims that he is the creator of the image located in the article, leading me to believe this is a vanity article created by the subject of the article or someone who knows him. --- RockMFR 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete appears to be a hoax, and if it isn't, vanity/unverifiable/non-notable. The only hit lists him (or someone else with his name) as a graduate of some university. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Absolutely no verification of his claims to fame. Google, Yahoo, Live, and Ask all return exactly zero hits with regards to him or his work. Certainly, if he has actually been the originator of one of the "Breakthroughs in Superior Mathematics", he'd be of note and actually have something to back up his claims of mathematical genius. Delete, unless information can be found verifying his claims. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable, hoax.--John Lake 01:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious hoax. Whoever proves the Riemann hypothesis gets a million dollars, so it would have been heard of. I think that the math in the article is just babbling, too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: no doubt a hoax. Biruitorul 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete patent nonsense --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - 3 ghits. MER-C 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. --SonicChao 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, why are we waiting? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a {{hoax}} with no references and sources to verify claims. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As hoax and nonsense. Spinach Dip 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, blatant hoax and nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Hoaxful vanity page. Anyone who did what this page claims would be in every major news outlet in the world including home page of WP, and we'd be writing about him. Baccyak4H 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per all.--Seadog 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete DEFINITELY a hoax. Hut 8.5 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Vanity Hoax.SkierRMH 03:27, 15 November 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. Majorly (Talk) 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GRWF

The page is about an online e-Wrestling club with no notability. The page creator is the one who is in charge of the online club, and the only contributor. The creator had also broken 3RR while removing speedy delete tags, and has a warnings on his IP's talk page, as well as a block log (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LtCannon). Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete One non-WP Ghit [3], NN --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sounds a lot like Championship deathlock wrestling which is also up for AfD. Tubezone 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As non-notable and vanity. Spinach Dip 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete most definitely. No evidence of WP:WEB. --Nehwyn 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity.--Seadog 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity piece. Doesn't meet WP:WEB Criteria. SkierRMH 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Personally, I'm rooting for Slicedawg to take the title, but some say he's a long shot... Per nom. ;) Spawn Man 06:12, 15 November 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. Majorly (Talk) 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by age (2nd nomination)

nn trivial listcruft, precedent was set by prior debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE world champions by age, so there is really no need for this list either Cornerbock 02:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all the reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE world champions by age. --EndlessVince 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As per nomination. Pursey 03:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom/per precedent. And let me comment—I can't believe that someone thought it was appropriate to document ages to the day. Of course, the ages haven't been updated in a month, which means that the entire article is false now! :) --Xtifr _tälk 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, the ages are given when they won the title the first time, since WCW isn't around anymore, the list basically is stable and you can't really do anything with it. Although I'm pretty sure that Ron Simmons was much older than listed when he won the title. Cornerbock 04:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - what comes next, list of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by inseam? Chris Kreider 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- SHHH!! Don't give them ideas! :) Xtifr _tälk 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't appear that anything has significantly changed from the original deletion nomination.SkierRMH 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Not a needed must for Wikipedia. Spawn Man 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Yeah, this article is as unnecessary as List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by shoe-size... or by location on the face-heel spectrum. Don't worry, these articles don't exist... yet... Valley2city 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice Chris K.'s similar cynical tirade. Valley2city 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. 1ne 06:45, 18 November 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 Speedily deleted as an empty template with no context. (aeropagitica) 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauchlord

suspected hoax, or at best heavily original-research. Zero google hits (except WP itself) for the title and no citations. Original was an contentless template (but was a few weeks ago, so not sure it's SPEEDYable), recent (and only other) contributor's other history appears as vandalism; some template values appear invalid for whatever types of data they should have. DMacks 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete nonsense/vandalism/nocontext/nocontent take your pick. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - csd a3. So tagged. MER-C 03:26, 14 November 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 spam; A1 - very short article without context. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beacon House Group

This is the one article left over after the mass deletion of pages from a banned user, Calvin John (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log); see this MFD entry for evidence. Worse still, there are only 47 exact results on Google, most of which are unrelated commercial links; only one of them is barely relevant at all. To top it all off, Alexa's ranking for the official site has the worst that I have ever encountered as a Wikipedian: a pitiful, miserable 3,368,725.

Moreover, a vandal going by the e-mail name of Asadaleem12@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) created this article. This account has also been blocked, and henceforth the content in question should just go away. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - No context really to the article, no content of use. Chris Kreider 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, website/game, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tankball

Not notable enough for its own page, written like a 8-year-old. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per... some criterion. {{db-web}} perhaps? -- Kicking222 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Not notable and not really encyclopedic. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Not speedy, but Strong delete. The article for its parent website was deleted... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - it's web content, thus making it eligible for {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 07:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Hayek Society

Non-notable student club. Delete. TerriersFan 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - verifiability issues: 99 ghits, no assertion of notability except for having some notable speakers speak at club meetings. MER-C 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- one of the three founders of the society has an article of his own. The university is one of the world's most notable. The speakers, as MER points out, have often been notable. The ideas discussed at this society (whether on approves of them or not) are focal points of political debate in many nations and, for that matter, at wikipedia. All of which seems to me to add up tonotability and a Keep. --Christofurio 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: non notable society, herdly referenced outside of Wikipedia[4]. The ideas discussed at my local pub are also "focal points of political debate in many nations", that doesn't make these debate evenings notable. I don't think Tony Blair (or any MP, or any political commentatro of a major newspaper) has said "As suggested by the Oxford Hayek Society, we should...". Otherwise, I would love to have a link for that, as that might be a good reason to keep it. Fram 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- If your local pub was the Oxford University of pubs, maybe you and your mates what debates such matters there could give yourselves a name and get an article. Personally, my local pub is more like the "Slippery Rock University" of pubs, so I'm out of luck. --Christofurio 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs a lot of work.--Seadog 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Just because Oxford is amongst the most notable universities, it does not follow that every society from there is so too. This one in particular is not notable from any evidence in the article, nor that I can find on the net. Seems a good fit for a societies of Oxford page.Obina 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep only if notability can be asserted. Have any alumni of the club made significant contributions to philosophy? No verifiability issues: Club exists and past events are listed (click through from first link to see that this really is the official website of the club). If consensus is to delete, the sentence in Friedrich Hayek about the club should be expanded to describe the origin and focus of the club. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with any one of the founders, or perhaps with Oxford itself; unless there's a major rewrite. Dont' believe that it's notable enough to have it's own article.SkierRMH 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete - Not that notable, but seems legit. I took the "Hayek on liberty" course there, but swapped it for the "Watching paint dry on the Hayek walls" course... :) Spawn Man 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete if somebody had been actively working on this article I'd say keep... it has potential, but as such it doesn't assert notability on its own merits. But it's been a month since somebody last worked it. Balloonman 23:21, 15 November 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. Majorly (Talk) 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamera 4: Truth

no notable fan films. see Imdb no page. Single6 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Norosu 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fan films are inheriently non-notable. MER-C 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Of course they're not. --Nehwyn 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete! Fan films aren't inherently non-notable, but nothing is inherently notable - everything must claim to be of note if it is to be included in an encyclopedia! But this article doesn't claim notability! More importantly, it doesn't cite any sources! And basically the entire article is a plot summary, which violates the WP:NOT policy! Which is why it should be deleted! — Haeleth Talk 10:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, 99% of the fan films are non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom and above discussion. Chris Kreider 12:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - (In Japanese accent), "Ahhh! Gozira, Gozira!", "That no Gozira, that Gamera!" The acting was less than adequate in my view. Spawn Man 06:20, 15 November 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. Majorly (Talk) 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Way

original research Voice of the UK 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. No it isn't, calling something original research doesn't make it so. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The nominator has no edits outside of this AfD. --Wafulz 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No context, not understandable. "Term" is not notable. Two Yahoo groups, a page detailing a "study group" for the author, and a BLOG about criticisms are not reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No indication why this mumbo-jumbo is supposed to be in any way notable. Recommend someone take a look at the "see also" articles, this may be a walled garden of cruft. Sandstein 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This title "The New Way" is used by hundreds of organizations, nothing to make this mumbo jumbo stand out from the rest of the claimants.SkierRMH 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE! Oh, the CRUFT of it all. This is part of a series of vanity articles about completely non-notable subjects created in an apparent attempt to boost the credibility of an absolutely non-notable author. Take a look at these:
- - Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet
  - The New Way, Volumes 1 & 2
  - The New Way, Volume 3
  - The Gnostic Circle
  - The Magical Carousel
  - Gnostic circle
  - Matrimandir Action Committee (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrimandir Action Committee)
  - Trivikrama
  - Aeon Center for Cosmology (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Center for Cosmology)
  - Aeon Group (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Group)

Have you ever seen so much work done to create vanity articles? Sandstein's term was apt: "a walled garden of cruft" OfficeGirl 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about all the exclamation marks. I guess I was taken aback by the extent of the articles created in this scheme. I went ahead and made a mass AfD for the rest of these here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination). It is listed as a 2nd nomination because there was also a Category created for this author and someone tried to use the AfD process to delete the category.OfficeGirl 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:BOLLOCKS applies. Leibniz 13:12, 18 November 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. Majorly (Talk) 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare's Influence on the English Language

This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article - it's drawing original conclusions. Much of the information here already exists in other articles anyway. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Rework to remove OR if neccessary but nearly the whole thing is sourced. The format is horrible, but the attribution is there. Its an interesting topic, and the article is in no way unsalvageable. pschemp | talk 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I can't agree with you about sourcing. See my comments on the article's talk page.
Delete and start over, with extreme attention to WP:V. Interrobamf 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The format is indeed horrible as it's quite clearly an academic essay. Yeah, it is sourced... in the way one would source and academic paper. The way it's written makes it appear to be largely original research, with proper citations. In other words: it looks, and likely is, a college student's english paper. --The Way 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Stubify Potentially a proper article, but this is a very bad start - looks like someone was proud of their English Lit class essay and did a copy and paste and uh... photoshopped book cover job. Needs complete rebuilding due to comprehensive problems with tone Bwithh 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. An unencyclopaedic essay that draws its own conclusions. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, no encyclopedic value. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Article may be poorly written and need cleanup but it is a valid concept, I have studied it in classes (it was a while ago) but nonetheless valid. Chris Kreider 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep if improved and renamed. (It's no worse than some 1911 encyclopedia articles I've worked on.) I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre. --Dhartung | Talk 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - it's just OR, clearly. Also too subjective a topic to really be encyclopaedic. Seb Patrick 13:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Too subjective? There are plenty of scholarly works on the topic. If an expert whom we can cite wrote about it, its a fit topic. Do you know anyone who denies he had an influence? We don't delte that which can be fixed here. pschemp | talk 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Even then, though, the article would surely have to be "Shakespeare's Perceived Influence on the English Language". I'm not saying I disagree that WS was the most important and influential writer in the history of the English language (as someone who studied him at Oxford, I'd be a fool to do so), and no, I don't know anyone who denies said influence (save for those who don't believe he was the sole author of his works, and that's a sufficiently large and significant debate that it can't be ignored). Even so, however, that doesn't mean that such people don't exist - and concepts such as "influence" are too abstract and subjective to ever be considered truly factual. Seb Patrick 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The title is neutral, since it doesn't claim that Shakespeare has a large influence on the English language, or that he had minimal influence on it. The title merely announces that the subject of the article is whatever influence Shakespeare may have had on the language, without passing judgment. It's the article that needs rewriting. Andrew Levine 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the "if it's too unsalvagable, delete and start over" camp I think, most of the time. But I think there's enough goodness here (yes, it's an essay from school) that it's worth a keep. Failing that, userify it and work on it more. But not an outright delete I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep there's the germ of a good article here, on an important topic but I agree in its current form it is weak. Improve the structure, remove rhetoric, develop some more depth in the ideas. Linguistically, Shakespeare used about ⅔million words. Something like a third of them are first (recorded) usage. He also developed some important elements like metaphor and its generative capability (extension). It's an important topic. Someone does need to do a number on it, though. Don't delete it before I've read it fully! Kbthompson 13:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Will keep this on my watchlist and reconsider if there's a lot of cleanup and some reliable sourcing. AndyJones 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Looks like an essay, but could probably be re-written into something useful. Also needs to conform to WP:NPOV (Favorite example: "William Shakespeare, the mastermind behind the English language, reformed it into the potential it has gained today.") Bjelleklang - talk 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Interesting article. If it need cleanup, then edit boldly. Can anyone seriously deny that Shakespeare greatly influenced the English language? Do you want 100 citations that he did? Edison 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Works where exactly how he did is explained, for preference. Thank you. Uncle G 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, it needs editing, but as noted several times above, the subject is important, and the content is not entirely useless for later editors who wish to improve it. Move to a title with standard capitalization if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Does resemble an essay, but on a notable topic and well-referenced. It should be wikified/encyclopedified, and possibly trimmed a bit, but not deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, well-sourced and significant topic, with even more sources out there. A worthy daughter article to William Shakespeare. All it needs is some editing for structure and tone. Andrew Levine 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep valid topic, if you don't like the current content, edit it don't delete it. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep encyclopedic topic. This article needs cleanup but it is definitely worth keeping. --Richard 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Richard and others. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Although people at the time of Shakespeare (& the French!) didn't have baths, this article needs a good scrubbing to make it all nice & polished for ligitmacy. Keep. Spawn Man 06:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Definate KeepBalloonman 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is a valid and encyclopedic topic. If you disagree with its presentation, no one is stopping you from being bold and doing something about it. {{sofixit}} RFerreira 06:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Clear keep, clearly can be fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 18 November 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 g1, patent nonsense, also WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Proportional Pirate Law

Disputed speedy. Nonsense, or at best original research. -- RHaworth 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. "The Proportional Pirate Law was created as a direct affront to the Inverse Ninja Law." Yep, nonsense all right. Fan-1967 04:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Consider Moving~~Delete ~~This actually sounds alot like something that Maddox has said. I'll check it out, and if it is, maybe we should consider merging it with his article.~~ Nevermind, it's just crap. Canuck90 04:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Gomu gomu no Delete Off the plank with ye. Danny Lilithborne 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Unreferenced. MER-C 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
0 ghits for "proportional pirate law" (when quoted). Potential speedy delete as nonsense, else delete. Seraphimblade 07:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. The Inverse Ninja Law? Oh please... MartinDK 07:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
NO Delete maybe merge with pirate under the popular culture and fiction section? definitely no delete, there is some merit to it, look at pirates of the caribbean... Maybe merge with the pirates vs ninjas article? — 71.137.144.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete this is a joke item right? (also zero hits on MSN search engine)--Bilbo B 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. As patent nonsense. Not to mention non-notable and unverifiable. Spinach Dip 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If such an article can be written with reliable external third-party sources, week keep with a possible merge somewhere. If, I suspect, not, tactical nuke from orbit. -- saberwyn 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, though I have heard of the inverse ninja law: As the number of ninja in a group increases, their threat level decreases to 0. --humblefool® 10:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- See Stormtrooper effect, of which the Inverse Ninja Law is a section. -- saberwyn 11:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Shiver its timbers. Patent nonsense. --Folantin 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - The inverse ninja law I have heard of, this pirate stuff is nonsense. Chris Kreider 12:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Arrrrr. This little one'll make a tasty snack for the sharks, I be thinkin'. She's due for a nice bit of walkin' the plank, she is. Herostratus 14:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and WP:BJAODN. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 14 November 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: Speedily deleted as patent nonsense and ridiculous slander. - Mike Rosoft 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Sadauskas

The article sites no sources, the only results yielded by Google searches of the name are of a video game designer (with no known relation to Agamemnon), and a review of the edit history suggests nonsense, especially considering the ridiculous image posted by the original author (that was subsequently removed) in a November 8 edit Canuck90 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn or hoax. meshach 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If "happens" to be the name of a real person, and is actually a load of nonsense, couldn't it be a possible attack (Especially with "ridiculous image"s)? 68.39.174.238 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultra-Speedy Delete. As patent nonsense and hoax. I mean, the last living decendant of a FICTIONAL character? My father might as well be Pikachu. Sheesh. Spinach Dip 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Cleary hoax. --Nehwyn 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - And so tagged. Chris Kreider 12:39, 14 November 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 userfy per [5]. If they want to expand it, they have thirty (30) days to do so. Kimchi.sg 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HLD clan

Online gaming clan. I previously speedy deleted this and User:WhateverPaper contested the deletion so I am bringing it to AFD instead. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-14 04:15Z

Delete Gaming clan, no notability outside their game. Fan-1967 04:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - yet another article about a non-notable game clan that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:31, 14 November 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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gustav Schwarzenegger

Being the father of someone famous does not make you notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. No, it doesn't, but he's notable anyway, if barely. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment It might in this case as his life history has been a subject of debate or criticism in the media and society. Similar, if fairly different, to Hutton Gibson. That said I'm not certain enough to make a vote on it.--T. Anthony 04:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete as per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Very minor Nazi/SA member and WWII German military police officer who just happens to have a famous son. In addition, article smacks of anti-Arnie scandal-mongering. Aside of one passing mention of one newspaper headline, linked sources do not indicate that Gustav Schwarzenegger was a "high-ranking" Nazi or WWII German soldier - they indicate instead that he was a "low ranking" Nazi party member who attained the rank of "Master Sergeant" in the military police. Also, article insinuates sinister crimes by Gustav only to finally state that there is no proof of any direct connection to any crimes and that he was cleared of any suspicions. That's just not cricket. Merge a brief mention to the main Arnie article if there's nothing already there, but no justification for own article Bwithh 04:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This book on Arnie also says that highest rank in Nazi military Gustav achieved was master sergeant[6] Bwithh 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to say "high-ranking enlisted soldier" instead of "high-ranking soldier". Master Sergeant is a significant enlisted rank with command responsibility. It is near the top enlisted rank in the Wehrmacht. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. He was made notable by political opponents in 2003 during the California recall election. His greatest claim to fame might be that he's the dad of Arnold, but his life story was still covered by multiple independent sources, which appear to be properly sourced in the article. WP:BIO trumps unwritten rule of thumbs like "notability is not inherited". hateless 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO guideline asks that the coverage take the subject as the primary focus. The primary focus of the coverage mentioning Gustav would be the son, not the father. In any case, media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Records: Arnold's father was member of Nazi storm troops", "Austrian Archives Reveal Nazi Military Role of Actor's Father", "Spotlight Thrown on Nazi Past of Schwarzenegger's Father", these are not headlines about Arnold. You need to put some considerable spin to pretend the last article is primarily focused on Arnold himself. If you want to argue that newspapers does not count towards the "multiple independant sources" rule, then good luck. hateless 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Being the Nazi father of a foreign-born California governor gives you notoriety, if not notability. Whatever the author's motivations may be, the article provides properly sourced context for Arnold Schwarzenegger and in particular for the "Allegations of Nazi admiration and support of Kurt Waldheim" there. Stammer 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So merge mention of Gustav to the main Arnie article, if its not there already. There's not much to say about Gustav except that he was a minor Nazi, a local police commander and Arnie's discipl inarian dad Bwithh 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:BIO, multiple independent sources. Notability != importance. Investigation involved the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others, received trans-Atlantic media attention.--Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, he meets WP:BIO criteria. Independent sources have been given, it's mainly because of the 2003 election of his son that made him notable. Still, he is notable in history but not because he is the dad of Arnie. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- If he were not Arnold's father, but just a run-of-the-mill Nazi soldier, he would not merit an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I gotta agree with the keepers arguments above. Chris Kreider 12:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep or full merge to Arnold's article. --RMHED 12:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. This guy is notable in his own right. --Howrealisreal 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep on the basis of being a person "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" and "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works", as per WP:BIO. GS's military record and NS/SA credentials (and issues surrounding AS's stated ignorance thereof) received considerable attention during the 2003 recall campaign and were legitimate discussion points at the time, not "scandal-mongering", against the background of AS's apparent espousal of naive attitudes about Nazism and his country's past generally (at least earlier in his career). It's also signficant as an example of the Austrian public's being comparativelyless informed about their fellow citizens's (or many of their own family members) active participation in NS politics and war crimes (compared to the record of self-examination in Germany proper, for example.) The article seemed to be factual, balanced, and propertly sourced before I made a few contributions to it myself, which I did because I had heard rumors that GS was a "high-ranking Nazi" and a "war criminal" and that AS paid the Simon Wiesenthal Center to "cover this up", none of which appear to be strictly accurate. So far from scandal-mongering, my hope is that this article will set the record straight. User:Whiskey Pete 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Multiple independent verifiable sources to notability. Edison 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, there are multiple independent verifiable sources to his existence, not to his notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's his relationship to AS and his wartime activities, not his extistence per se, which are notable. User:Whiskey Pete 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Really? What in his wartime activities make him notable? What other Nazi master sergeants with the same degree of activity do we have articles on? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Operative word is 'and' here, Zoe; it's is wartime background and his relationship to AS. --Whiskey Pete
Keep. Is notable in his own right. --Czj 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- No one has yet to indicate what his notability is. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - He is notable for being the possible tie between Arnold, a candidate for an American electorial office, and the Nazis. Having any ties to Nazis, for an elected official, or a serious electoral candidate, is extremely rare and notable. Possible ties, especially ones that can be taken seriously to be newsworthy, while not nearly as notable, is notable enough for WP. hateless 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - It is especially notable given AS's authoritarian tendencies, and that he claimed not to have been aware of his father's NSDAP/SA background. --Whiskey Pete
Delete. A Google News Archive shows that no articles are available on this man when he was alive. The only articles are after his son became notable years after Gustav Schwarzenegger's death. Worth a brief mention in Arnold Schwarzenegger's article but not in his own right. [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs).
- I don't believe that it's necessary to be notable when you're alive, otherwise we wouldn't have the articles Vincent Van Gogh or John Kennedy Toole. I would also point out that there is no way that Google News Archive provides comprehensive historical coverage (e.g. of wartime Austrian newspapers) and drawing inferences from that assumption is erroneous. I do agree it is unlikely there was much news coverage of his minor activities. I also do not believe that notability, on its own, is the only determinant for an article's existence (notability is just a guideline). I simply believe this topic merits a fuller discussion than a mention in Arnold's article can give. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with The Gubernator's article and redirect, as there is some minor notability, but not enough to support individual article.SkierRMH 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Gubernator's page is huge and sprawling as it is -- there wouldn't be enough space to cover the finer technical points of GS's career without losing focus. --Whiskey Pete
Keep. As variously pointed out above, he's received coverage in his own right (albeit due to Arnie, of course), and the article is a good complement to the main Schwarzenegger article. Sandstein 22:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Whiskey pete. Being someone's father can actually make you notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above, subject is notable within his own right. RFerreira 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Definately KEEP. Think about this. If Arnold becomes president of the USA don't you think it would be important to have a bit of history of his father around ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.68.50.33 (talk • contribs).
- Let's hope we don't change the Constitution so that can happen. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP: Fascinating article. -Husnock 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, possibly move to Arnold Schwarzenegger Nazi father controversy because that's what this article is really about. Demiurge 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep: He's worthy of his own article just based on his life, whether or not he's Arnold's father. --Wizardman 16:29, 19 November 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. Dakota 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technopathogenology

Non-notable neologism, 2 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - A neologism, yes, but by Wikipedia guidelines, this is notable, the relevant guideline being: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The two G-hits above appear to be academically reliable, and the sources listed in the article itself would also qualify. Akradecki 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Eguiazu invented something, Eguiazu wrote a few works about it. They're all cited here. The fourth cite doesn't look promising either. Nobody else has written about it. This is a case the inventory supporting the invention. - crz crztalk 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, unverifiable protologism. Fails WP:NEO, fails WP:V by way of failing WP:RS.Both the non-wiki google hits on Google come from articles sourced to the apparent coiner of this term. All except one book reference in article come from apparent coiner of the term. No hits on Google Books or Google Scholar. Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for promoting coinages Bwithh 05:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bwithh. Sandstein 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per crz. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm with crz and Bwithh --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Keep""This is the case the inventory supporting the invention""Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for promoting coinages " OK But if it is the case what is the problem to put it in Wikipedia? There are a lot of intrascendent terms( I tell you a list if you like)in Wikipedia.Are you sure It was not the case? You can affirm it? I think the problem is that technopathogenology an "unpollitically" term is. "Keep"

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Orlowski

Failed candidate for city council of a small California city, otherwise unnotable, especially since he came in 4th place. Calton | Talk 04:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, lacks sufficient press coverage as stated in WP:BIO. (Youtube fart yuk-yuks don't count.) Crystallina 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion. Just imagine if WP had articles for every failed third-party candidate... Caknuck 06:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable and possible vanity. Spinach Dip 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - If WP opened up to failed third party candidates, just imagine the lists that would spawn from that. Chris Kreider 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Youngster of Germany 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. The Orange County Reg. articles make it seem like the entire thing was just a prank!SkierRMH 03:58, 15 November 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 as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling singles in Japan

Listcruft Crazy Jackees 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Crazy Jackees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I very rarely vote to keep lists as I believe the vast majority of lists on the Wikipedia are unencyclopedic and unnecessary. This, however, is one of the rare cases that I think we should keep a list. Organizing albums or singles by sales is very common and 'best-selling' lists that cover the entire history of something are rather important. I doubt people would vote to delete a 'best selling movies of all time' or 'best selling American movies of all time.' I can forsee the argument being made that a 'best selling singles of all time' would be acceptable, but not one limited to Japan, however I wouldn't agree with this. Most such 'best selling' lists are going to naturally be US-centric since it has, by far, the biggest market for such things. When countries, like Japan, have their own individual music, or movie, industries then they should be able to have a best-selling list of albums or singles in that industry. A good equivalent would be something like having a 'Highest-grossing Bollywood Film' list. --The Way 06:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep A well-defined list ("100 best-selling singles in Japan since 1968"), referenced, of narrow enough scope to remain maintainable, and potentially a useful almanac-style list. More lists should be like this one. Shimeru 07:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Shimeru and The Way. Quite Wikipedic. Stammer 08:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It has useful information. Sales and weeks at #1 is enough to save this one from the shredder. Spinach Dip 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic list. Much information and organisation in the article, and Japanese have their own music market like the UK and the US. So such lists should stay. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I'm with The Way on this, generally opposed to listcruft, but this is a great example of what a Wikipedia list should be. Possible Speedy Keep. Xtifr _tälk 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep; a best selling list limited to any reasonable set is useful and important.--Prosfilaes 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Duiqp 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Useful, verifiable, and no convincing reason given to delete. Perhaps a speedy keep is in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Plenty of useful and verifiable information here of interest to Wikipedia readers. Yamaguchi先生 23:10, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial activities of the Shiv Sena

Most of the information presented here is already there on Shiv Sena so no need to merge. The article is a potential POV fork of the Shiv Sena article and is wholly unnecessary. Hkelkar 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - POV fork, also the article was created when a user could not find reliable sources to back up outlandish claims against the Sena.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (Yes, I can't believe it either) BhaiSaab ^talk 05:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This was created so that the Shiv Sena article could have a summary and a main article link to this page. However, one particular user did not accept it and this was made redundant. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Seems as if an article of this type would necessarily violate NPOV and, possibly, OR --The Way 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete- No need for a separate article MerryJ-Ho 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If there's any salvageable content, merge it to Shiv Sena and delete this POV fork. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As a copy of already available information. Spinach Dip 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. Possible original research and no reliable sources to verify the content. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete merge any possible useful information and then delete, as the main article has the ame section--Ageo020 (T • C) 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and merge NPOV matter to Shiv Sena per Jim Douglas Doctor Bruno 12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete- This article is fit for a news report. But no use in encyclopedia. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As a copy of already available information. Shyamsunder 10:04, 164 November 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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic: The Gathering deck types

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. For more arguments, see AfDs at:

Andrew Levine 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control deck (2nd nomination)

Delete per precedent above. MER-C 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge the "basic deck types" portion to Magic: The Gathering, since the basic terminology is relevant, and redirect. Get rid of the "archetype breakdown" portion as too game-guide-ish. Shimeru 07:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
CCM the article to Magic: The Gathering#Deck construction.--TBCΦtalk? 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is very useful to people who are interested in more than the absolute basics of the game. Spinach Dip 09:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge, encyclopedic information to main article, and delete the page and rest of the content. Another piece of fancruft and how-to-guides, oh goodness. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete these articles are patently useless to anyone not playing the game. If there's a CCG wiki, then transwiking might be an option, otherwise, trash it. EvilCouch 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think with a rewrite that cut down on the lists of cards and had a greater reliance on sourced material from MTG.com and major writers at the main Magic fansites, this article would be useful as a subarticle of Magic. However, this article needs to be heavily sourced, and the "this is how you build a foo deck, cards x, y, and z go into "Foo deck variant one"" needs to just go. Do Not Merge, as moving enough content to the main article to justify moving it would clutter up an already sizeable article. This is why we have subarticles. -- saberwyn 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per previous AfD's it seems useless and inconsistent to keep this. MartinDK 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep While Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide, it does include content on games, and this is something that deserves to have its own section in the main Magic: the Gathering article, as the types are defined enough that the creators themselves use them in their development process. Yet that article is rather large, thus daughter articles need to be created. I suppose it may only be useful to people who play Magic, but this is really no different than having articles like Flea flicker or Hail Mary pass. How are those articles useful to people who don't play Football or watch it on TV? Or bunt for folks who don't play baseball? Sure, those sports may be more popular than Magic, but that's no reason not to include Magic content. That said, the article could use some clean-up. For one thing, too many links. Mister.Manticore 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Sure, those sports may be more popular than Magic, but that's no reason not to include Magic content." I agree we should include Magic-related content but disagree strongly with the notion that articles on Magic strategy are of the same importance as strategy of popular sports. Baseball and football (and cricket, soccer, etc.) all have a larger fan base, far more media coverage and published literature, and a much longer history. The relative importance of the games does matter. I know that I would argue to delete an article on Rich Hoaen or Craig Krempels if we had them, but would keep the article on Sixto Lezcano or Félix Millán. I don't even think either of the former would pass an AfD. Andrew Levine 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, Football, and Baseball and soccer do have more established bases, and there are more players of those sports with articles, perhaps less notable in comparison to the Magic players listed, even those who have been deleted, but as the discussion on Magic players a few months ago established, that doesn't mean we should delete Kai Budde, Jon Finkel or Mike Long. Not that bringing up players really relates to this discussion, which is about concepts in a game. And that includes strategy. You can see it in the articles on Baseball(with at least three sub-articles that further spread into more articles. The baseball terminology category has at least half a dozen entries I'd say are strategy descriptions), American football strategy(with over a dozen sub-articles), Chess (With one strategy page and several spin-offs(. Now many of those articles could be improved, absolutely, but I doubt you'd convince anybody to delete all of them. Similarily, we shouldn't delete this page. Especially not because Magic is less popular or established than other, more main-stream sports. That would violate NPOV. I can concur that there shouldn't be pages on *every* deck type, but one describing the fundamental deck types is a different matter. Mister.Manticore 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Well, nobody is arguing to delete Kai Budde (which was the first article I ever created); my point in bringing up players as a subject is that even established and successful Magic players are less notable than barely-remembered MLB players, because the deletion-threshold is different for Magic vs. baseball (or football or soccer). This deletion-threshold applies not only to players but also to strategy elements. There have been dozens of books that discuss Hail Mary pass or hit and run (baseball) (along with hundreds of websites and newspaper articles and thousands of TV and radio broadcasts spanning over 50 years). Because of the strong potential for OR creeping in, strategy elements of games have in my opinion a very low deletion-threshold, meaning that more than a half-century of thousands of reliable sources is to me just a little bit over the line of "keep." By contrast, the terms "Aggro deck," "Control deck," etc. are about 10 years old (some of the decks mentioned on the page are only 2-3 years old) and the sources leave something to be desired. I guess the only sources that would be acceptable for this subject would be magicthegathering.com articles and possibly Mike Flores' book Deckade (but possibly not, since it's mostly self-published). For me that falls below the threshold. Also, you'll have to clarify what "That would violate NPOV" means, since NPOV applies to statements made in articles, not to deletion discussions, and deciding what gets deleted and what doesn't does not fall under WP:NPOV. Andrew Levine 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, I mean popularity bias. Also possible a bit of age bias. Just because Magic is new compared to sports like Chess or Football doesn't mean we can't have articles on it. Mainstream bias is a bias too. Now I might agree having articles on individual deck types is too much, but that's not what you're asking for here in this AFD. You're asking for the deletion of a page about deck types in general, which is itself is a clear sub-article of the already too large Magic the Gathering article. Why? Because it's a game strategy guide. That's where you fail to convince me, because the fact is, Wikipedia has literally dozens of articles that involve the same kinds of material. The only difference? The game. I see a bias here, and that's why I am concerned about NPOV. And besides the sources you mentioned, I'd add Starcitygames, Scrye, Inquest, Pojo and possibly more. (Is there a Magic: The Gathering for Dummies? Maybe, I dunno, but it's possible for one to be written.) All of them understand and use the concept of Aggro/Combo/Control in their writings. But yes, I would recommend Wizards.com as a primary authoritative source in this case, and since I know where some of the articles are, I'll go add them right now. Mister.Manticore 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, nobody is saying we shouldn't have articles on Magic; nobody wants to delete Kai Budde or Time Spiral or Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering). I strongly disagree about the systemic popularity bias and age bias, because I am pretty sure those biases actually work in Magic's favor rather than against it; interest in editing Wikipedia hits many of the same demographic points as interest in playing Magic, especially 13-to-35-year-olds who are technologically adept. The big sports have much broader interest across age brackets, personality types, and social strata, but the same doesn't hold on Wikipedia. Look at this vs. this or this, which seems to indicate Magic may actually be more popular among Wikipedians than baseball, and almost as much as football. Of course this is far out of line with its popularity among the general population. So I'm pretty sure the popularity bias, on Wikipedia at least, is in Magic's favor. It must again be stressed that WP:NPOV only applies to statements made in articles, and redefining it to include the idea of whether specific topics should be given coverage is a dangerous expansion of the concept. It does not violate any policy to give, say, Soccer more coverage than Settlers of Catan. Andrew Levine 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are saying "Delete this article on Magic Deck types" because it is a game strategy guide but not saying "Delete this article on Chess strategy, or football strategy, or baseball strategy" even though the information is comparable. How is this page any different from Chess Openings(which by the way, has its own category with over 150 sub-articles!)? I wouldn't say there's a difference in terms of strategy-guide ness. That's where the bias comes in, just like having so many articles on Anglo-American stuff represents a bias and a violation of NPOV which we should work to avoid. I can understand the game guide problem. This article is not a game guide, it's just describing a well-known aspect of the game, one the developers themselves recognize and design for, and in comparison to articles like say Sacrifice hit, bunt, Trick play, or Napoleon Opening it has sources. Lots of them. Yes, it could certainly be improved, but that's a clean-up issue, and I agree that it could use some. I'm willing to go with you on individual decks not having articles. I'm even willing to go with you on the deck types listed here not having individual articles. But I draw the line at deleting this content which combines them. One article is fine with me. This is not out of proportion with the importance of this material within the game, nor is it out of line with Magic's importance in gaming. 6 million players? I'd say an article on deck-types is reasonable. Especially if you consider that wizards.com uses them in their design, and included them in their theme week coverage. Mister.Manticore 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge per TBC. Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. No opposition to a partial merge to main Magic article. Wickethewok 14:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Tancred 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep At WP:NOT, the only applicable policy I see concerning this article states:

"Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."

This article contains NO instructions whatsoever. It is in no way, shape or form, a howto guide!

As NorrYtt put it in the related AfD: "There's no 'How to Play' in these articles. They are theory articles. It's not "The Queen's Gambit", it's "Controlling the center squares is an excellent strategy." Magic is too dynamic to write books about it that don't quickly become obsolete. Sources are Internet-based." Crimson30 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Crufty, but seems to describe a basic component of the game's structure/strategy and therefore a legit topic for an article. Not very well-sourced as-is, but the solution to that is to fix the article, not delete it. Fairsing 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Complete and utter Gamecruft. No verifiable references, non-notable. Macktheknifeau 02:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Fairsing. Silver2195 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, game strategy guide. Demiurge 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete per nom, or merge. --Wizardman 16:31, 19 November 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. Dakota 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mister J

NN, probably WP:VANITY ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

are you kidding me... this guys a legend... every time i pick up pwi his are the first pages i look at.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollywoodphil (talk • contribs).

Note: The above comment is this user's only edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, most probably autobiographical: creator was Mrjslack (talk • contribs). MER-C 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced and likely autobiographical. Seraphimblade 07:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Delete as a vanity article. Non-notable. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - No proof of WP:BIO. --Nehwyn 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, even though he's a legend - obvious vanity piece.SkierRMH 04:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vengeance 77

NN. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as NN band, and so tagged. Seraphimblade 05:18, 14 November 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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Escapist (magazine)

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB. No media references or sources to back it up, only its website. At this time the article doesn't even have a talk page. Less than 50 edits in the whole article for over a year. Anomo 05:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Article needs sources, not deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Quite notable and now it's been updated with references. Ben W Bell talk 08:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Kudos to Dhartung for the addition of sources. Mitaphane _talk 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Dhartung's editing & addition of sources brings it up to snuff.SkierRMH 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kudos! --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep obviously notable - Whiskey Pete
Keep per pretty much everyone. What does 50 edits per year have to do with anything? RFerreira 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep now that article has been properly sourced by Dhartung. Nice save! -- Satori Son 21:27, 18 November 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 speedily deleted by Saxifrage. MER-C 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waterman (flash)

Non notable flash cartoon; possibly spam.--SUIT^What? ⁴² 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's considered for speedy deletion and with good reason. MartinDK 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete tagging endorsed. MER-C 06:52, 14 November 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. --Core desat 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Control deck

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Since the last afd, the following precedent has been formed:

MER-C 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering deck types.

Delete per nom. Shimeru 07:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced, POV, and a game guide. Replacing the many wonderful MTG fan sites (and the official site) is not the goal of Wikipedia as I understand it. Compiling the world's largest externally verifiable, encyclopedic online resource is. -- saberwyn 08:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Delete only if the related article is not deleted. Spinach Dip 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a how-to-guide, no reliable source, another piece of fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this article is useless to anyone not playing the game. If there is a relevant CCG wiki, then transwiki might be an option, otherwise trash it. EvilCouch 12:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge back into the Magic: The Gathering deck types article. One article is sufficient. I could even get behind a delete since the information is already there. Mister.Manticore 14:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the other deleted deck types. Andrew Levine 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all the precedent. Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Wizardman 16:35, 19 November 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 copyvio. W.marsh 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Hernandez

Putting this up for debate. Councilman and candidate for forthcoming Anaheim City Council elections. I find 43 unique Ghits. He has gotten quotes in some news articles, including the LA Times and the Wahington Post, but these are only trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:V. Until a paper record exists he is non-notable. After that, still unlikely. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and vanity. Spinach Dip 09:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The nominator's Google results do not accurately portray the notability of the subject. The search was for "Bob Hernandez" firefighter, while if you replace firefighter with Anaheim it turns out over 500 hits. In particular, notability is demonstrated with an internationally covered incident between Councilmember Hernandez and a Muslim candidate for his office. This event was covered by the LA Times, and through the Associated Press to big media outlets like ABCnews and the Guardian Unlimited among others. Wikipedia:Notability (people) lists "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage" as criteria for inclusion. --Howrealisreal 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Kudos to Howrealisreal for digging up the info, but this still fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well I do what I can. This article is a poor specimen, so it can go and I wont feel bad. I still feel the subject is somewhat notable, but that's a different story. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is so ambiguous and subjectively applied, I don't see how it matters. --Howrealisreal 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unverifable and unnotable. Hello32020 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above (i.e., Wikipedia:Notability (people) lists "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage" as criteria for inclusion)--Sholom 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Anaheim is a pretty big city with over 300,000 people, not to mention the location of the extremely notable Disneyland. An elected city council person there is notable. --Oakshade 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Uh oh. After I made that vote, I added a ref to the article which is the Anehim City Council website profile on the subject and realize now it's actually the same text as the article word for word.[8] *sigh* Obviously a complete re-write is needed to avoid possible copywrite issues. Well, I still think this person is notable for the above reasons. If deletion will happen, I request not to salt so it can be re-written without cut & pasting from another website. --Oakshade 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: City councilmen are generally not notable. --Wizardman 16:37, 19 November 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's a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article. If we're counting, which we don't, it was 10-7 delete, which is fairly close. However, policy trumps 'I like it'. Proto::type 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe's Shanghai

Nomination for deletion I marked this for speedy deletion as an advert and it was contested by another editor who called for a stay of execution on account that the restaurant had been mentioned by a couple of blogs. Anyway, delete as subject is not an encyclopedically notable restaurant, and no claims are made for notability in the article. I've eaten food from this restaurant many times - its relatively decent Chinese food by Manhattan standards (native Manhattanites - get a grip, your average-joe-level Chinese food, while not as sketchy as Boston's "Combat Zone", is generally not great.), and the restaurant has something of a local reputation for its Xiao Long Bao soup dumplings (again, relatively decent by Manhattan standards given most places around there will serve you soggy lumps of dough). But Xiao Long Bao soup dumplings are widespread in NYC and indeed other US cities (not to mention uh, actual Chinese cities). Article consists of listing of 2 locations of the restaurant plus link to a review on a blog, plus a link to the official restaurant website. Remaining 50% of article given over to description of Xiao Long Bao dumplings. Bah, try them at Din Tai Fung (an internationally noted restaurant for Xiao Long Bao dumplings) in California/Taiwan/China/Japan/Singapore instead. Bwithh 05:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete My hometown of Decatur, Illinois has a chain of a few Mexican Restaurants, are we going to give them articles too? Restaurants need to be really notable to get an article; we can't possibly have articles for every restaurant out there, essentially free advertising. Furthermore, getting mentioned in blogs doesn't cut it: if it did, any editor could make a blog, or two, or three then plug whatever restaurant he liked on those blogs and use it to establish notability. We certainly don't need to go down that path. --The Way 06:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT. Borderline WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a collection of restaurant reviews. Completely unverifiable, weasel words galore. Now let's wait for the inclusionists to point out that none of us are able to determine what notable is and make up their own policies. MartinDK 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As advertisement. Spinach Dip 09:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Joe's Shanghai has won several awards which are published in NY Times, this article needs to ascert that, also [9] states that Joe's Shanghai, one of the original dumpling purveyors. It has been stated as the "best" xiaolongbao in New York. Valoem ^talk 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it necessarily adds any encyclopedic notability even if verified, but can you cite the new york times links that show these awards? by the way, the thefoodsection.com link you refer to above is a weblog run by one person. If you want to swap tips on where to find the "best" restaurant food in town, go to www.chowhound.com or something, not wikipedia Bwithh 09:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Best I can make out from the restaurant website is that in 2005, it was a nominee for best chinese restaurant in New York in a reader poll for AOL City Guide. *shrug* Bwithh 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete, looks like a notable restaurant with NY Times mentioning it, but I doubt its notability overall and whether it is verifiable. More of an ad than an article, so this is not articles we want here on the encyclopedia. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Folantin 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a place for advertising and virtually no notability is asserted. Moreschi 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep It does have a few minor claims to notability. It was named as the top spot in New York's Chinatown by Fortune in 1998 (Lieber, Ronald B. "Top Spots In Chinatowns". Fortune. 2 February 1998. p. 28), and it was listed by USA Today with Lespinasse as one the places NY food critics would send their friends (Shriver, Jerry. "Where local critics send their friends". USA Today. 30 August 1996. p. 6D). Thus, Joe's has received coverage (albeit brief) in a couple of national publications. Also, during the 2003 World Series Michael Bloomberg promised to send Boston mayor Thomas Minino two dozen dumplings from Joe's Shanghia if the Red Sox won the championship (Agence France Presse. "New York, Boston mayors double bets on who will win series pennant." 15 October 2003). I thought that was kind of interesting; it implies that Joe's is seen as one of New York's trademark local dishes. In addition, there were 48 total New York Times hits in their online archive to 2001, including a few articles about the restaurant itself (its history, its owner, etc). I didn't look through all of them, so I'm not sure about the awards claim listed above, but Joe's did appear in a couple of Top Ten Chinese Restaurant lists, FWIW. Overall, I think this article has some potential. If any local New Yorkers want to take a crack at it, go ahead. Zagalejo 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I looked through the hits in the NYTimes archive since 1981. Almost all of these hits are 1) restaurant reviews 2) articles about chinatown or chinese restaurants in new york which mention joe's shanghai amongst other restaurants. the only possibly "news" article about joe's shanghai specifically I can find is a single paragraph local news item about a new branch opening in Queens[10]. Bwithh 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The restaurant is notable because of the above mentioned press coverage (which clearly stands out more than your mundane Chinese restaurant). Also, four of their locations in NYC have been rated favorably with extensive reviews on Citysearch. --Howrealisreal 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Those "extensive reviews" on citysearch are reviews and scores generated by reader reviews i.e. anyone can review and score the restaurants Bwithh 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- Comment Press coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Apparently we're not even talking about news coverage (apart from trivial mention in a baseball stunt) here either, but restaurant reviews and articles from the dining section. Thousands and thousands of restaurants get good reviews with glowing language about how special a particular dish is or how unusual blahblahblah is (that's part of the fun of reading restaurant reviews) - are we to have articles on each of them as well as every resturant which gets a passing mention in a travel/dining article? (btw, NYTimes gives Joe's Shanghai 2 out of 4 stars (a very good rating but not exceptional at all...). Bwithh 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment: The purpose of pointing out the Citysearch page is to show that there is a large cult following and deep admiration for this restaurant. It's not quite as easy as you make it seem to get listed on Citysearch and then get a good rating and review among the superfluous amount of places to eat in New York City. Clearly, Joe's stands out. Here's a "real" restaurant review (by what you say) in The New York Times from April 1996. Additionally, three of their locations are reviewed and rated in New York magazine, while a travel article in The Independent from the U.K. makes a point of mentioning how good the place is. This restaurant was also rated "best chinese" in 1998 by Time Out New York. This obviously shows more notability than some local Chinese food joint. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) states "The company has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself... [including] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles" for inclusion. --Howrealisreal 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Restaurants typically get reviewed in the local newspaper. Yes, The New York Times is a major paper, but it does serve New York and this is a New York restaurant. The New York Times would be a significant source of notability in most cases, but for New York locales themselves it is less so. The Denver Post and other Denver papers often review bars and restaurants in town, but I'm in no rush to give them all articles. --The Way 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- - - Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about what you just said. The New York Times is an international paper, that although may cover local things, is read and circulated widely outside of the city. To say that New York things published in the Times have no merit since "it's local news" is baseless. Quite the opposite, New York things and events gain international recognition because they are published in the paper. Furthermore, relating to your argument, then why is The Independent (a U.K. paper) writing about how great Joe's Shanghai is? You can't have it both ways. I don't understand your argument. --Howrealisreal 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Independent (UK) mentions it in a TRAVEL article about new york. The writer probably looked at existing travel guides or the dining articles in the NYTimes for ideas. Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide. There are many many local interest items in the New York Times every day which have no interest beyond the local area whatsoever e.g. crime incident reports, talk of the town, local government stories, local human interest stories etc etc etc. Bwithh 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh. So now you know what the author of the Independent article was thinking at the time of writing it? You're making very baseless claims here without anything but your subjective feelings to support them. Did you even read that article? The author actually writes about Joe's because he and his lady feel it is a noteworthy stop because of their food, from personal experience. Again, to reiterate, out of all the places to get dumplings in NYC, the article chooses Joe's as the best, and NOTABLE enough to suggested it to the entire Independent paper readership. This has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia being a tourist guide. This article is not saying "come to New York City for Joe's dumplings", it's just recording the fact that this restaurant has been distinguished from the rest because of how good it is. This is not just known on the local level, as Zagalejo and others have pointed out. --Howrealisreal 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that any restaurant reviewed in the NYT is notable. But I agree that, when looking at the big picture, Joe's Shanghai deserves an article. In addition to the Independent blurb, I found relevant Lexis-Nexis results from newspapers in Singapore, Boston, and Minnesota. Lots of non-New Yorkers have heard about this place, and even though most of the articles are restaurant reviews or travel section blurbs, it's pretty clear that the place has made an impact. Zagalejo 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, not every NYT reviewed restaurant deserves an article but this one clearly does. I overhauled the article, adding references. Thanks for your help here. --Howrealisreal 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn restaurants. Eusebeus 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced article about a company, only one review from an online magizine that according to them prints All the news thats fit to eat.. Ok, we can confirm the reviewer liked the food, but that does not establish notability. There are more eateries than we have articles here(millions). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep See reasons above. Also, 26,100 Google hits. I went back to more than a hundred Google pages and all the results were still referring this restaurant chain. In fact, the Wikipedia entry is fourteenth on the list. Wikipedia has articles with almost zero Google hits and there is no controversy about those. Also, it can't possibly hurt Wikipedia OR its users to keep this article, remember, Wikipedia not having size limitations is one of the core concepts part of it. Keep. --K-UNIT 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, but the primary overriding concept is that it is an encyclopedia. Google hits showing reviews and people mentioning the restaurant, newspaper coverage, awards etc are not automatic indicators or encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the only indicator of encyclopedic notability is your subjective feelings about a topic. In regard to User:Bwithh #Articles I am only not nominating for deletion out of personal sentimentality. So, things that you personally are okay with can stay, but food institution in New York City that are outside your frame of reference you must crusade against? In particular, I see one of the things on your list is Gardies, a takeaway food joint that doesn't seem to have any references or statements of notability in the article. Double standard maybe? --Howrealisreal 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to support a deletion of Gardie's but as I say on my user page, I'm not nominating for personal sentimental reasons *shrug* - the same goes for the lollipop lady who helped me cross the road to school as a kid. I've certainly nominated or been a key arguer for deletion in articles about subjects I've personally liked before e.g.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zippie_Picnic,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newtonmas_(Third_nomination). I am not sure where you get the idea that my arguments are based only on subjective feelings from. So sue me if I like to write the occasional afd nomination in a conversational tone. Any more questions from the Inquisition? By the way, I live and work in Manhattan. As I state in my nomination, I have eaten food from or at Joe's Shanghai many times - probably 25-30+ times over the last couple of years, usually including their soup dumplings. Bwithh 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

KeepMultiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications. More than enough to satisfy Wikipedia standards for what is notable and encyclopedic. Edison 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "guidelines" not "standards". Even high profile press coverage from major sources not necessarily sufficient for encyclopedic notability e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and its subsequent deletion review which endorsed the deletion [11] Bwithh 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that this article was nominated because, supposedly, it didn't meet the guidelines for a notable company. There has been some discussion, the article has been improved with multiple sources that satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but the nominator still feels those sources are "not notable enough". Bwithh, you are only one person and you do not constitute Wikipedia consensus. You have nothing to back up your claim that this article should be deleted beside your subjective feelings that hold no weight. --Howrealisreal 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Howrealisreal, you are attempting to undermine my arguments by attacking me as someone who does not frame arguments in terms of policy and acts out of personal whim. I hope in future that you will refrain from misrepresenting other people's arguments with ad hominem criticisms, and from generally being condescending. It's not appropriate. Bwithh 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a Pokemon argument (sometimes it's used for deletion). Notability of that subject is not equivalent to every other. --Oakshade 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No its not, I was demostrating prior precedent in relation to a policy issue Bwithh

That still appears Pokemon hidden in the word "precedent "We deleted x because of ___, therefore y should be deleted for the same reason." That argument, while it might have been valid for that cited article, is not equivalent to every other. --Oakshade 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try again - my point here was in relation to a dispute about a policy reading. The claim was made that "Multiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications" is "more than enough" to satisfy the "standards" for notability. My response was these are guidelines, not standards and that actually, there are cases such as the George Allen Smith case, where "Multiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications" existed but the article was nevertheless deleted (with deletion endorsed on review). In my response, I make no mention of Joe's Shanghai. It would be an odd comparison in any case, since the prominence of press coverage in the George Allen case greatly outweighs Joe's Shanghai. WP:POKEMON talks about the keep argument that "x should kept because y has been kept". In your exegesis of my comments, you are claiming that I am sneakily using a deletionist twist on the Pokemon test (a novel twist based on your own observations, since it's not covered in WP:POKEMON), in effect arguing that "x should deleted because y should be deleted". I am not - I am saying that (for the umpteenth time), that the assumption that press coverage automatically translates to encyclopedic notability is incorrect, and that here is an example of a case with high profile press coverage which was nevertheless judged unencyclopedic and deleted. Leaving aside the matter of whether a hypothetical deletionist version of a Pokemon test is in fact simply a mirror image equivalence of the Pokemon test, if I was making some kind of deletionist Pokemon argument, the argument would in effect be saying that all subjects with press coverage should be deleted - this is clearly nonsense. What I have been saying (until I'm blue in the face) is that Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability and in case people think I'm making this up, here's a good example of this point in action. This point is not the same as saying that Media coverage shows lack of encyclopedic notability. What it is doing is calling for a higher level of judgement to be exercised beyond blindly following whatever is in the media. I hope this has clarified things for you. Bwithh 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the long response, but it still goes back down to comparing the argument to delete on a different article and very different subject. Greg Allen Smith was/is someone who went missing during a cruise at sea and this is an article of a Chinese restaurant chain with a great amount of differences between the two and even the arguments for keeping (there's more than just "this has lots of press coverage" arguments) and deleting. If your argument was actually included in WP:AFDP, then it's valid to cite that argument as such and even in that case it would only cite a precedent, not policy. Your heavily repeated "Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability..." argument might be a good one, but it is not policy and arguably not even precedent but was just used in the discussion on the decision to delete that specific article. You even said yourself above "Even high profile press coverage from major sources [is] not necessarily sufficient for encyclopedic notability..." which correctly demonstrates that there are some instances where that might be the case as all articles and arguments for deletion/inclusion are unique. --Oakshade 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just one more thing, I could easily cite the AfD of Jeffrey Ingram as an example of primarily using the "heavy news coverage" argument for reason to keep as that article was kept, as a counter to your argument, but i know you'd throw WP:POKEMON out. The same could be used in reverse. --Oakshade 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per press coverage above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:V and a notable chain. --Oakshade 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have to say that the article has become even more of an advert since it has been edited since the original nomination - the food section now singles out lion's head meatballs and other dishes for praiseat the restaurant without justification except for restaurant reviews. Yes, I've had their meatballs. They're okay. Bwithh 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bwithh, in regard to your comments, if I have offended you or hurt your feelings then I must apologize. It was not my intention to say anything that could be be interpreted as un-WP:CIVIL. This is business, not personal. But, I also feel that I must defend myself from your charges. I do feel that your arguments are based on personal experiences and lack foundation in Wikipedia policies. Here are some examples: "The [Independent] writer probably looked at existing travel guides or the dining articles in the NYTimes for ideas," (speculation) or "Yes, I've had their meatballs. They're okay" (trying to undermine published works based on your personal opinion). These are just a few examples of subjective arguments that are not verifiable and not based on any guidelines. I'm sorry, but you equally tried to misrepresent my views and sources. Unfortunately, while I have evidence as to why my arguments hold weight, you have nothing to show for yourself besides the fact you think that the place is overrated. You are right, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has standards. This is why what gets put in it must be based on facts traced back to non-trivial published works outside of the subject, and ourselves as editors. If you want to express your personal opinion about why Joe's isn't good, do it in your personal blog instead of trying to destroy information that others find notable and worthwhile to include. I do hope that we meet again (as you put in an earlier version of your comment) and who knows, we may find ourselves on the same side of the argument. This is the best part about Wikipedia. Take care. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On more thing: I made some changes to the article acknowledging your claim that it reads like an advertisement. I hope you can see this as a sign of good faith and that I'm willing to compromise. Additionally, I found Joe's in the Best Food Writing 2003 compilation on Google Books, so I cited it for a new "In literature" section as further proof of notability. --Howrealisreal 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What would impress me would be if it was mentioned in a medium not dedicated to mentioning food eateries. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually it is mentioned also in Five Flights Up And Other New York Apartment Stories. Chris Madak (who lives or lived above Joe's in Chinatown) talks about how obnoxious it is in the winter when the line to get in backs up his apartment stairs, and one time when a crab in the restaurant's tank got free (by standing on top of a lobster). --Howrealisreal 17:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete per WP:LOCAL. --Wizardman 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-local coverage = zero. Blatant spam to boot. ~ trialsanderrors 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Have you read the above discussion? The place has gotten press in England and Singapore (do a Lexis Search, or some equivalent). And I don't think it's *blatant* spam. It seems to have a pretty strong fan base, so it's conceivable that someone would write an article about it. Zagalejo 02:33, 20 November 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. --Core desat 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes

A list page of a regular wrestling TV show isn't needed, and is simply fancruft. This should be put on a wrestling wiki, not here. There are no list of Raw episodes for a reason: not all are notable. Same goes for ECW, Impact and so on. RobJ1981 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's simply an episode guide like any other television show. I don't see a problem. If a complete RAW episode guide was attempted, I doubt anyone would object to that. TheNewMinistry 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There has been Impact and other wrestling show lists in the past, and all have gotten deleted. ECW shouldn't be the exception that stays. RobJ1981 06:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. But then why are there any episode guides at all for fiction-based television shows on Wikipedia?. You're trying to say that pro wrestling is somehow exempt from being a television show when ECW on Sci Fi is episodic just like any other series. How is an episode guide for this show in any way bad for Wikipedia? TheNewMinistry 06:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is like having an episode guide for Monday Night Football. Plus, previous RAW and iMPACT! result pages have been deleted as well. TJ Spyke 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment But why were they deleted? TheNewMinistry 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because they were fancruft and not very helpful. They would also become unwieldy. RAW, for example, has had 703 episodes. TJ Spyke 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and source. Useful list that is not any different from other TV show lists. VegaDark 07:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- So you would want an episode guide for MNF or other sports shows? TJ Spyke 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - If a complete one were to be achievable I would welcome it. VegaDark 07:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per precendent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006. This is what I believ TJ was referring to. Edgecution 07:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I couldn't find that to present it. This article doesn't help anything, and this is the kind of fancruft that should only be on a wrestling based Wiki. TJ Spyke 07:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - That "precedent" could have (and should have IMO) just as easily been closed as no consensus. VegaDark 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    - "No consenus"? The strong majority of those votes were "Delete" and the few "Keep" arguments were weak. Here is another precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Smackdown Results. It's pretty clear that this should be deleted as well. TJ Spyke 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      - A majority of 14-10-1 does not constitute a consensus in my book. As for the Smackdown one, it looks as if the entire reason it was nominated is because it was poorly written and had little to no context. Also, just because of past precedents doesn't mean we can't change our minds. VegaDark 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)***
        
        It's not just votes, it's the arguments made in them. This type of article exists for the same reason we don't have episoded guides for news shows or reality shows or other sports. TJ Spyke 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        The arguments made for keeping were more persuasive from my point of view. Let me quote someone from the TNA AfD that nobody responded to: I honestly have trouble understanding the concept of an encyclopedia that wants to exclude knowledge of this depth just because it can. Yes, it's fairly trivial knowledge, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge, but these articles are not an indiscriminate collection--they're nicely organized, formatted and compartmentalized, and will only get more so as they live on. Even Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia mentions the word's origin as "the idea of collecting all of the world's knowledge into a single work". M-W says it's "a comprehensive reference work". Why limit ourselves to the length encyclopedias have been in the past? If Wikipedia isn't meant to be a true encyclopedia, then that's fine too, but I haven't seen the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia page yet. -- Trevyn. VegaDark 08:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Pointless. Random collection of information. Fancruft. -- T H L 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft, listcruft, pointless list. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete agree with Terence; this is unencyclopedic listcruft. Eusebeus 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is not TV guide or a show program, this is an encyclopedia. Delete per not being encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unlike PPV articles, which reference important events, a list of match results of a weekly wrestling TV show isn't important. Any notible events from these shows will be mentioned in the person's article. 131.230.135.105 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I dont know if this even classifies as cruft Killerhun00 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - there's nothing particularly remarkable about the individual episodes for them to be listed. I'm not a huge fan of having episode guides (lists of episodes and individual articles on episodes) of any television show on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Wizardman 16:41, 19 November 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. W.marsh 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Save Karyn

utterly insignificant and non-notable, despite mentions, will be forgotten; really, a link to the internet archive as a reference? doesn't pass "100 year" test —Hanuman Das 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge simple reference to Save Karyn. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per WP:WEB. MartinDK 06:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't pass the "6 month" test, either. --humblefool ® 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It is now mentioned in Save Karyn with a link to the Internet Archive of the defunct site. The defunct site fails WP:WEB. I doubt it even passed the "6 Day Test." OfficeGirl 22:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Delete, derivative of a fad. Lankiveil 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC).
Merge to Save Karyn, then delete. --Wizardman 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Halo 2. ~ trialsanderrors 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons of Halo 2

Essentially a recreation of a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2. Was prod'ed, but tag removed by creator with the edit summary Removed banner as I feel I have sourced the article & made it not CRUFTy or WPNOTy.... Jabba the Hutt made it through, why can't the biggest selling game ever have a weapon's page???. Calton | Talk 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: A similar discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alyeska/Battlefield 2 Ranks. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Despite the article's creator's insistence to the contrary, this sure seems both 'CRUFTy' and "WPNOTy' to me. This isn't a game guide. You want this kind of information? Thats what gamefaqs.com is for, not Wikipedia. --The Way 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you didn't make fun of my edit summaries, which are meant to be funny or jokey 90% of the time... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - again, we've had this discussion many times before. Wickethewok 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Halo 2 to discourage recreation. VegaDark 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete/redirect per above. Just salt it. MER-C 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this article as Wikipedia is not a game guide, OR merge and redirect www.gamefaqs.com to www.wikipedia.org -- saberwyn 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - Well I had no idea about the rules etc, but I thought it would make the grade... Sorry if I've let anybody down.... Now that's gonna leave a dent in my edit count!!! Spawn Man 09:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Halo 2. This is Halocruft and Wikipedia is not a gaming wiki. Try sending it to Halopedia if they do not have it yet. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Grab a Covenant Energy Sword and despatch it to better place. Delete Eusebeus 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Could I merge it into the Halo 2 article?? Thanks - Spawn Man 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep because the article is well-organized, informative, includes references, and an image. --164.107.92.120 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and merge any significant content back into Halo 2. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Indiscriminate list of minutiae. Combination 13:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Halo 2. --Wizardman 16:44, 19 November 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. Major character in major series. Luna Santin 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cho Chang

A rather large and extremely crufty article on one supporting character in a novel. Not notable at all if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrobrawler (talk • contribs).

Keep - She seems to be a significant character, and as far as biographies of fictional characters go, this one actually doesn't look half bad. (NB: User had Prod'ed this article rather than putting an AfD tag on it and the Prod was removed. I've taken the view that since the AfD was in the log, it should in fact be dealt with as one). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I have listed the reasons why this article should not be deleted on Talk:Cho Chang, but I will reproduce them here for the sake of simplicity. There are numerous reasons why a deletion of this article would be frivolous.

Attempting to place all the information contained within this article into a larger Harry Potter article would be extremely difficult, not to mention very messy.
This article is an important part of WikiProject Harry Potter, and deleting it would cause more harm than good.
A fictional character in a book does not merit his/her own article? Please see Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Peregrin Took, and numerous other fictional characters on Wikipedia.
Extensive research and work has been put into this article by many Wikipedians, and their efforts should be recognized instead of destroyed.
This article is actually a good example of how to write an article about an important character in a fictional novel. I may be wrong, but after being on Wikipedia for over a year, I think this is certainly better than many other articles about fictional characters. It is concise and has an active community of editors who put in time and research into the article.
"Not notable at all if you ask me" is not a good reason for deletion. Not notable for what? Lack of sources? The references are placed down at the end of the article. Not notable as a character? Seeing that Cho Chang played a huge role in the fourth and fifth novels of Harry Potter, and a notable role in the fourth movie, she is, on the contrary, one of the most well-recognized Harry Potter characters. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Necrobrawler is a very new user, registering on November 5, 2006. He/She has had 11 edits so far, and most are his own deletion notices on other Harry Potter articles. One link counts as possible blanking vandalism, and he/she also created a template {noob}} which I am in the process of nominating for TfD. That template does nothing more than print: You are a noob. You beg for free stuff. Will interested parties in the AfD take that into account. The lack of a signing signature when nominating this for AfD also signifies that Necrobrawler does not understand ~~WP:DELETE~~ some editing guidelines as well. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - assume good faith here, please. Many established users forget to sign their contributions to AfDs once in a while, but that doesn't mean that they don't understand the policy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Agree - I forget quite often, too! =) I suggest Necrobrawler spend more time on Wikipedia, and increase his/her experience first, though. It takes time. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. Obviously notable. MartinDK 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, bad faith nom from suspiciously low-edit count nominator. I don't expect new users to know what "crufty" means. hateless 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Supporting character, yes, but an important one. Makes quite an impact on the main character and, therefore, on the plots of the books. Shimeru 07:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep bad faith vandalism nom. Ben W Bell talk 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. I'd agree it's slightyly over-done, but that's no reason to delete the whole thing. Spinach Dip 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep and close, AGF extends only so far. I also back up Hateless's point about the doubt caused when a user with 11 edits uses the word "crufty". Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:24, 14 November 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. El_C 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baka Subculture

Author-removed prod, with a reason featuring the phrase all it needs is a name and recognition, which to me implies that it has neither and thus shouldn't be included here. In its current form, it's only a dicdef and a Google doesn't give me anything to go on regarding the existence of the subculture. The word "Baka" itself seems to be a commonly-used one in anime circles, but I can't find anything saying that it's a term used to describe the subculture here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete 'Baka' is not used in this way in Japanese. This sounds a lot like otaku, and that's probably both descriptive of the article's author and the meaning of the content in the article. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 06:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef for an obviously non-notable neologism. No Google hits for "baka subculture". NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Possibly a veiled attack article, as "baka" is Japanese for "fool" or "idiot." Shimeru 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete total rot, either as described above a veiled attack or made up by someone with no knowledge of the Japanese language who doesn't know the meaning of the word. Ben W Bell talk 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, speedy if possible as per above. MER-C 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Obviously written by somebody not of the "subculture" that they are writing about. (Because if they were, they would have referred to it as otaku) --RoninBK_ETC 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This describes the anime movement exactly. WP is not a place for you to create your own terms. Spinach Dip 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Seeing as how "Baka" means idiot in Japanese, me thinks someone still has hard feelings over the ol' Pearl Harbour misunderstanding... ;) As per nom... Spawn Man 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Duiqp 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete as all aboveMightyAtom 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Um... we wouldn't really keep an article that amounted to "'Being a stupid helpless consumer' is a youth subculture that mostly consists of listening to Latest Boy Band's 'Music', often incorporating elements from Chatting In MySpace culture" either. This is a borderline attack page that does absolutely nothing to justify its existence... like proving that these nebulous people even exist. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Before you make judgements on what Wikipedia would and would not keep, I'd check out pages like Sheeple, and it's no consensus AfD --RoninBK_ETC 07:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment the key difference between that term and this is that that term is at least verifiably used once in a while (there are citations to that effect). There's no proof that this one is, and in fact there seems to be proof that it isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete- Obviously non-notable. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:53, 16 November 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 Speedily deleted as an article without context and sources. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural responsibility

This article has been tagged as disputed since it's fourth edit. It remains unsourced. My own google search turned up no uses of the phrase in the manner described in this page. From the available evidence, this appears to be original research. Rossami (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:OR. Rambeling nonsense, not much else to say about it. MartinDK 07:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Nonsense unverifiable and original research. Spinach Dip 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: pubphilosophycruft. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:29, 14
Speedy Delete: Nonsense. Mrbowtie 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

November 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 as a blatant copyvio (CSD G12). If someone wants to create a new version free of copyvios, go for it. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car dealer scams

Wrong tone, unencyclopedic. Attack (but probably well justified) on the used car trade. -- RHaworth 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Support It was originally lifted straight from one of the external links, and the edit that improved it (removing my suggested speedy deletion) hasn't really fixed the problem. It's hard to see how this can be made encyclopedic.JQ 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Obvious WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. MartinDK 07:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Prune mercilessly and merge to false advertising. Could possibly be encyclopedic, but I'm not sure there's enough to say specifically about used car dealerships to merit a separate article. Shimeru 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Support for merge. We have to delete enough drivel, lets try to keep (some of) the pages that contain real information. Sander123 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- Comment It is a guide on how to buy a used car. It will never be encyclopedic. Do an article on car dealer scams as a notable phenomenon, sourced and in line and up to standard with the other consumer fraud articles and we might have something worthy of Wikipedia. MartinDK 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Please do not misrepresent me. I'm not suggesting that this article is encyclopedic. I am, however, suggesting that it may be worth merging some of this information, pared of its POV and guide-like prose, to an article that is -- and which doesn't yet contain said information. Shimeru 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but completely rewrite. Finding sources should not be too bad, but they will have to be reliable ones. --SunStar Net 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep preferably, renamed as Consumer fraud in car dealerships. I think there is enough specifically to say about the topic and it should be easy to source some of this. Journalists like Jim Mateja write about this sort of thing regularly (very often the consumers naively let themselves be bamboozled, though). At worst merge with the bare-bones car dealership article. My perspective from having a job for a couple of months working inside a car dealership (I was employed by a third party) was incredible shock at what even a high-volume, clean, upscale dealership with a pro-customer reputation (built on friendly advertising) pulled on a daily basis. You have no idea. --Dhartung | Talk 13:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia needs such an article as this. If it needs improvement, edit boldly.Car dealer scams have been written up for at least the past 70 years, so add references from Consumer Reports, Readers Digest, and the numerous consumer guides which have outlined scams from rolling back odometers to "only driven by a little old lady on Sunday" to "let me see if the sales manager will approve this price" to "we have a special financing plan for folks like you." Edison 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is essentially OR and would be difficult to craft into an encyclopedic article. Eusebeus 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is OR, I would support an article that references every scam from the start. The article should exist, but this a the worst of starts as nothing is referenced. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The title of article is inherently POV. The article content is unsuitable as an encyclopedia article, and unsuitable as even the starting point for an article. In a word, unsalvageable. If somebody wants to create a properly cited consumer fraud page for used car sales, I'm all for it, but this article is not the start of such a piece of work. -- Whpq 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why would it be limited to used car dealers? New car dealer scams have been widely written up as well in the mainstream press. Edison 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, re-write and re-name as suggested above. Robovski 02:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur with the "keep,but radically prune" consensus. --- Simon Cursitor 07:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Copyvio from [12], so tagged. A few cosmetic rearrangements of the text don't lift the copyright protection. Sandstein 22:47, 15 November 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. --Core desat 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R-mean

Non-notable musician. -- RHaworth 07:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete — Not much assertion of notability. It seems very POV at best - "addictive sound of his music?" "incredibly marketable looks?" –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - probably fails WP:MUSIC even when verified. MER-C 08:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly speedy for vanity (if that's possible). Not use of weasel words (incredible and extremely). Spinach Dip 09:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete NN, fails [WP:Music]]. As far as I can tell... 6 relevant ghits for R-mean, and about the same for the rest of the members of the group; 0 for "broken water" (you don't want to know what other uses that phrase has ;)...SkierRMH 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Mike Dillon 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per spam, npov, advertisment, etc. --Wizardman 16:46, 19 November 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. --Core desat 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E.B. Hughes

Not very notable bio written by user:Ebfilms who has edited nothing else. The pc merchants tell me that I must not call this vanity but can you really think of a better word for it? -- RHaworth 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:VANITY. If it walks like a duck.... MartinDK 07:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
'Delete per WP:COI. Hello32020 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Made two films, none having more than 5 IMDb votes. --Wizardman 16:47, 19 November 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. --Core desat 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mats Linder

Contested speedy deletion, since there is a claim to notability on the talk page (supposedly he belongs to "the triumvirate of Swedish fan fiction", along with John-Henri Holmberg, Bertil Mårtensson, and Sam Lundwall), I'm sending this to AfD. No opinion as of now. ~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't assert notability. (However, the article doesn't claim he's involved in SF fan fiction; it says he's involved in science fiction fandom, which is a different kettle of lutefisk entirely. I wonder how four people can be a triumvirate, though.) --Charlene 08:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A quatrumvirate maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete; NN, possible vanity peice.

"Gang of four"? No- too historically charged... The correct, albeit more boring, term would be quadrumvirateSkierRMH 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by "reliable, third-party published sources" per WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nn. --Wizardman 16:49, 19 November 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. W.marsh 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacHOME

Does not look like it passes muster. Spotted on #wikipedia-spam —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 09:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of notability, and the most recent news on the magazine's home page is from April 2006; it appears they are defunct. Uucp 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete and Comment. Confirmed defunct.[13][14] Might have been notable in its day (mid-90s) but clearly of at-most-passing lasting notoriety as it didn't even wind up as an online-only or get absorbed by Macworld or one of the other mags that survived. DMacks 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per defunct. --Wizardman 16:50, 19 November 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, A1. Aguerriero (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nimroid

Nor Google, nor the cited references confirm that a nimroid is actually a frog. Sander123 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as lacking context. So tagged. MER-C 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. For being completely devoid of information whatsoever. Spinach Dip 09:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy gonzales!!! - as per the rest of you guys.... Spawn Man 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete ...It's not a frog. Pursey 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nothing for me to say actually. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:43, 14 November 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 doesn't appear to be any mergeable information. --Core desat 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo Demo for Mac

The article does not describe an actual video game per se; only the demo of a video game. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Rubiksphere 09:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Smerge (slight merge) to Halo: Combat Evolved any relevant information that isn't game guide. --RoninBK_ETC 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of notability (for the demo as such), WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 21:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hello32020 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom & WP:NOT#IINFO.SkierRMH 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per comment by RoninBK. RockerballAustralia 09:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. --Wizardman 16:55, 19 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZVOX Audio

This article smells like self adverting to me... A violation of WP:NOT & is not notable. I mean, what good did they do for the world? Why are they important? ... What does everyone else think? - Spawn Man 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 10:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I've speedied an article from the same author about the president of the company in question. The information present in that article leads me to believe that the author is, or is very close to, this person. yandman 10:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete maybe speedy... Probably a violation of WP:CORP and WP:NOT#SOAP, advertising.SkierRMH 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Been finding independent articles from reliable sources that are primarily about their products, including one from PC World. [15]. [16], [17]. The advert aspect needs to go away. --Oakshade 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per advert and nom. --Wizardman 16:56, 19 November 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. Nothing to merge, really (any decent info is already duplicated). I have left a redirect. Proto::type 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elmeda

The character this page is about is buried in the parent article and from what can be told from that article is a very minor character. She rates a two sentence description on that page, one of which states: "Not much has been revealed about the character at this point in the series." EvilCouch 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Urge contributor to merge this info into the parent article article, not notible enough for separate page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 November 2006.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Duiqp 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Appropriately brief summary already included at Kiba (anime). Most of this article is unverifiable or original research or both. -- Satori Son 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Delete per nom. --Wizardman 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What's the actual deletion argument? ... This character doesn't warrant a seperate article. The information should be merged into the main one per fiction guidelines. We don't need an AFD for a merge. --Kunzite 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG.. What a mess. There's a whole set of these articles. I'm cleaning them up now. The original contributor didn't even spell the series name correctly in most of them. Urgh. --Kunzite 01:26, 20 November 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. --Core desat 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Obara

Article about an "actor"(or rather, a student) that provides no proof of notability, a google search on the name gives nothing relevant, IMDB gives one appearance in an episode of "creepy canada", a documentary. yandman 09:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I forget to mention that the article was created by an spa account called RObara? yandman 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD was vandalised by the author of the article. yandman 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind not all of Robert's acting contributions have been to film or television - but rather other media forms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robarakira (talk • contribs).

Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 10:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable actor. Article violates WP:COI and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not for self-promotion (or promotion of any kind). Nobody deserves an article until they are notable pursuant to the criteria clearly set out in WP:N. This guy doesn't meet them. Also block user for vandalism of AfD. --Charlene 10:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable. Sander123 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria, not significant in the film industry, WP:AUTO, WP:COI. His role on IMDB since to be a very minor role. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:COI, evident vanity piece.SkierRMH 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Maybe he'll become a big star one day and frame this AfD, but for now nn. --Oakshade 05:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete: His actions are becomign more deltion worthy than the article itself. --Wizardman 16:59, 19 November 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 A7 + possible copyvio from their own wiki --humblefool ® 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Tree

non-notable flash animation, does not comply with WP:WEB. Simonkoldyk 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy" delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:18, 14 November 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 deleted by Aguerriero. Whispering 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Cretan

Fails notability, as subject has no google hits whatsoever, plus the article has subtle bits of nonsense all over it, like Cretan receiving the Melon award for writing "melon" a lot in a publication. One editor seems to like to remove the speedy delete tag and then make minor stylistic and spelling edits to an article that is clearly not real. Strange. Tractorkingsfan 10:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, only 18 ghits. MER-C 10:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I was wrong about the google hits, I couldn't find any related to this particular Nicholas Cretan. Either way I think it's garbage. Tractorkingsfan 10:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

speedy. Sander123 10:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Reads like an in-joke. --Folantin 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - No google hits with Niocholas cretan having ANYTHING to do with journalism. Chris Kreider 12:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - this could have been tagged with db-nonsense, surely? Moreschi 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Do I need to comment any further? Pursey 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, A7, nothing to say. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:44, 14 November 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 speedied, copyvio --humblefool ® 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XDebug

No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. Perhaps spam. article has little or no content of use. Chris Kreider 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE, vaguely promotional too. Mango juice^talk 19:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - CSD G12 - copyvio from http://www.xdebug.org/ --tgheretford (talk) 19:57, 14 November 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 CSD A7 G3 G10 take your pick - crz crztalk 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly Mattis

The article seems to be nothing but a personal attack against a school media specialist. The colourful language and the claim of being the child of Adolf Hitler certainly qualify this as vandalism. Atomskninja 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. Clearly vandalism, should go right away. Tractorkingsfan 10:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No question. Sander123 10:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Immediate destruction. --Folantin 11:53, 14 November 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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

~~Not notable enough to deserve its own article~~ Memmke 10:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Linux kernel and redirect. Memmke 09:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not a very good article, but google is usually a decent preliminary indicator of notability, and this debate yields literally thousands of relevant hits. Tractorkingsfan 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then I think a merge with the Linux article would be a better idea. Memmke 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Tractorkingsfan 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - seems notable enough in the field of Computer Science. Chris Kreider 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable debate, needs more sources and a good expansion. Article is very vague at its present state. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is notable. being a bad stub does not make it unnotable. Needs expansion though. MartinDK 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable, but expansion is neccesary. Hello32020 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable in operating system history. Georgewilliamherbert 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tell me why this has to have its own article and can't be included in the Linux kernel article. Memmke 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - If you think it should be merged, you should have proposed a merge on the article pages. What you proposed here is a delete, claiming non-notability. The claim of non-notability is bunk (nothing personal); Linus (creator of Linux) and Tanenbaum (creator of Minix, a previous miniature UNIX-like OS) getting into a major public online argument about what aspects of OSes were optimal and would dominate in the future was major news at the time. The article is terrifically weak / stublike, but it could be expanded into a point-counterpoint listing all the messages in the exchange with full wikilinks to the theories and topics debated. It's sort of sad that my comment here is now longer than the article, but that can be fixed. Destubbing stuff is normal routine fixit process. AFD is for things which clearly aren't notable; WP does not require that we delete all stubs because they don't clearly justify that events/topics are notable yet. The event was notable. If you want to not delete it and merge it into the Linux history or some such, be my guest, but that's not deleting it. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    - This "debate" was essentially a flamewar, so I don't think a listing of points/counterpoints would improve the article, and arguments for and against microkernels vs. monolithic kernels are already listed in their respective articles. Maybe it was wrong to call this "non-notable", but again, I don't think it deserves its own article, mentioning it as a curiousity in the Linux kernel article would be enough. Memmke 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletionists and mergists out there, help me ward off these biased inclusionists! Memmke 09:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete An exchange of online postings seems non-notable. Edison 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Linux or wherever. Wasn't around then, but the article doesn't tell me why I should care enough about this debate to read (or write) an entire article about it. Sandstein 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand, the debate is sufficiently notable for inclusion. RFerreira 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's easy to say that an article needs expansion, but what would that expansion consist of? Information on how Torvalds fails to "ignore the bait" and goes for some "serious flamefesting"? Or how Tanenbaum tells Linus that he should be thankful that he's not his student? Or that Torvalds goes on and on about perceived flaws in a system that's meant to be simple enough for students to understand (the design of). I see very little notable content in this debate, but I find the debate notable enough to mention, in its right place: the Linux kernel article. Memmke 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And, I just want to make it clear that I now stand for a merge of the article's content to Linux kernel, to the section (Architecture) where it is mentioned, and a redirect of this page to it. Also, I want to point out that it seems to me as if articles covering computer related topics stand a much higher chance of surviving AfDs. :-) Memmke 09:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Should there be article about debate on what kind of configuration management system is the best for the kernel development? Debate over filesystems? GPL3 vs GPL2 ? On proper threading implementation? Debate about binary drivers or other zillion of debates? Lunixcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Needs to be improved a bit, but worthy of an article. --Wizardman 17:01, 19 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi

Fancomic which fails WP:WEB as well as the general notability criteria. To be specific, the article provides no evidence that the comic:

"has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works."
"has won a well known and independent award." — I do not believe the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is either "well known" or "independent" (since the awards are voted upon by webcomic artists).
"is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." — The comic is self-published.

Few other articles link to this article, which underscores this lack of notability.

Furthermore, the article lacks reliable sources for most of its content, meaning that the article is unverifiable. It seems to consist mostly of original research and other unencyclopedic content, such as character analyses and plot summaries.

This article was previously nominated for deletion on May 1, 2005; the result was no consensus. Since the closure of the debate, the article appears to have improved little in terms of encyclopedic content or sourcing. --Slowking Man 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about similar fan works created by the same author, and have the same lack of notability, verifiability, and encyclopedic content:

Grim Tales from Down Below — Note: the large number of internal links to this article are due to the article's inclusion in Template:Gaobam.
King of Fighters Doujinshi

--Slowking Man 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. Subjects have not gained wide notice, and we aren't (thankfully) a article repository for fanworks, of which the list is endless. Interrobamf 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the general precedent for not having articles on individual works of fan fiction, plus WP:WEB, WP:V, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Though I edit one of those articles a lot, I can't find anything asserting its notability, and what goes for one would almost certainly apply to the rest. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and Grim Tales from Down Below, Delete King of Fighters Doujinshi.

"has won a well known and independent award." Whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is 'well known' is up for debate, but I'm pretty sure it's an 'independent' award. Just because other webcomic artists vote doesn't mean the awards are dependent, just as I would consider the Oscars an 'independent' award despite the fact that it is voted on by people in that industry.
"is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." The comic is published on Snafu Comics, which has a traffic rating of 12,440 from Alexa, which is owned by David Stanworth. Mr. Stanworth decided to host all of Bleedman's comics and is not directly related to Bleedman in anyway that I know of. They weren't buddies like Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston. Bleedman doesn't own the hosting or the domain. I think that makes Snafu Comics independent of Bleedman. I'm not sure whether it's well known but it does have an Alexa rating of 12,440.

I'm not sure how either comics violate WP:V as stated by Andrew Lenahan. It would seem to me the best source of material for an article about a comic would be the comic itself.

Ivvan Cain 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a big push on Wikipedia to have articles be verifiable using reliable sources. If an article's only sources are from the subject itself, that article is questionable and will probably be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So basically the push atleast for webcomics is to cite information from other people writing about the comic as oppose to the comic itself? That's hard for most webcomics to do. Ivvan Cain 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why most webcomic articles are deleted. --RoninBK_ETC 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So under that one can could essentially delete all the "web comic" entries as they are all Self Published and the majority of the Source content comes from the Subject themselves. Heck why stop there Why not delete all of DC/Marvel/Archie/Dark Horse/etc's Individual Comic entries also they are Self-published with the majority of the Source info coming from themselves also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.196.224.71 (talk) 21:25, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Except DC/Marvel/Archie/Dark Horse Comics and so forth meet criterion one, in that they have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Many of them would probably meet criterion 2 as well. Not to say that many of the comics articles could use some work, but there's little doubt about the notability of say, Superman. --Slowking Man 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're a little bit confused. Marvel (etc.) are not self-published, and there are plenty of reliable sources that cover them: Wizard, Comics Journal, Comics Buyer's Guide, and many others. I don't think trying to compare a powerpuff girls fan comic on the web with Batman and Spider-Man is really helping your case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that this isn't true (the self-publishing part and the sourcing part). There are plenty of webcomics that are not self-published, either in web form or in print, Megatokyo (Dark Horse Comics), American-Born Chinese (First Second Books in book form and Modern Tales in webcomic form), Chasing Rainbows (girlamatic), etc. There are also many webcomic articles which can be sourced from reliable sources; Megatokyo (New York Times) and American-Born Chinese (San Franscisco Chronicle, it was also nominated for a major literary award, no small feat) from above, American Elf (Boston Globe), The Perry Bible Fellowship (The Guardian). I don't want to disappoint you but webcomics are being covered by reliable sources. ColourBurst 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

CCM the articles Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi, Grim Tales from Down Below, and King of Fighters Doujinshi to the Snafu Comics article.--TBCΦtalk? 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per TBC Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's pretty damn notable. Blacklist 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful to elaborate upon why you think the article's subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --Slowking Man 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The comic's notable. Simple. You don't see it as popular (the dA pages, the Alexa traffic) then you're blind. Blacklist 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:SET#Bias in the Alexa test and WP:NPA. Thanks. Garrett^Talk 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A) So... the page views could be LESS. That doesn't actually help your argument, it helps the fans. And B) People of Wikipedia need to grow a backbone and allow for some criticism here, ffs. Blacklist 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the entire 'Bias in the Alexa test'? It said that the webmaster can install the toolbar and visit the site themselves, INCREASING the pageviews. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly but Bleedman does average a lot of page views daily which cannot really be artificially inflated. http://bleedman.deviantart.com/stats/pageviews/ Almost 12k daily. Though to be honest this debate really isn't getting anywhere.
Ivvan Cain 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Starblind. Garrett^Talk 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Snafu Comics per TBC's reasoning. Since they're hosted on that site. a mention in that article makes more sense. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I thought we already addressed it was notiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Retro7 (talk • contribs) 07:51, November 17, 2006 (UTC).
Delete derivative fancruft. It's not just the topic; it's the content -- with no possibility of improvement. John Reid ° 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not printed; on hiatus; fan fiction; only claims to notability are the Choice Awards. Kill this dead, but kindly. There are worse articles. --Gwern (contribs) 08:31 17 November 2006 (GMT) 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- This web comic has won an award that's apparently notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Isn't that a notability criterion? ★MESSED ROCKER★ 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is notable. No one's ever challenged this, but I don't see how it meets WP:WEB. --Slowking Man 10:09, 19 November 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. --Core desat 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fasttranslator

Probable self-promotion/advertising for NN website. Alexa rank of 629,923 [18]. 194 ghits [19]. Some assertion of notability and not irredeemably spammy, so I don't think this is speedyable. IslaySolomon | talk 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy - I do think it is speedy. I am sure there are several sites out there that will do the translation. Is the site the best at what it does in published journals? I do not think it asserts notability and its only purpose is spam.Chris Kreider 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "...is one of the fastest growing companies in the UK." seems like an assertion of notability, however potentially biased and untrue it may be. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Seems to be a newer company, so might warrant an article eventually, but right now Wikipedia can do without this probable advertisement, in my opinion. Tractorkingsfan 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement, definitely fails WP:CORP criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mango juice^talk 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I cannot stand advertising articles on Wikipedia. Wikipediarul e s 2221 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete violation of WP:CORP, pretty blatant advert.SkierRMH 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom and article. --Wizardman 17:04, 19 November 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. attack page, patent nonsense, take your pick. Also did some blocking. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush cottaging controversy

This incident has not been WP:V, and even if true, may be unencyclopedic. Dryldram 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Its obviously not true since no news is cited a quick google search yields nothing. Gdo01 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete the article as vandalism and close this discussion, which is also an act of vandalism carried out by a sock puppet to avoid a speedy. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
SPEEDY - no cites, and without is a pesronal attack. Chris Kreider 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - unfortunately, this is a real life incident with consequences, deleting it would be wrong. Chill out man! --Pokerfoot 12:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. MER-C 12:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and merge into George W. Bush, please use the GWB talk page to discuss this. It's notable, and verifiable. --Horbirre 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I hate to say "I told you so". If there's an admin around can they close this discussion please, lest it attract more spam from sock puppets. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:19, 14 November 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. --Core desat 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayla Rubinelli

Non-notable losing game show contestant from America's Top Model, was prodded by User:Mikeblas, however, article survived an earlier mass AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caridee English, which technically means it must be listed here, rather than prodded (I think). The conclusion of the previous AfD was "train wreck" -- essentially, too many articles nominated at once. However, since then, many of the articles have been deleted individually, including Kari Schmidt, Bre Scullark, Catie Anderson, Sarah Dankleman and many more. Others have been converted to redirects, such as Tiffany Richardson. (But the majority have simply been deleted.) Might be speediable under A7. Otherwise, should be merged or deleted as per ample precedent. Xtifr _tälk 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - There is no content of value in the article. If anything, perhaps a list of contestants on the shows page or something but definitley not an entire article for a 2 lines summary. Chris Kreider 12:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles on individual seasons of the show do list all the contestants for that season. Xtifr _tälk 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable reality TV reject. MER-C 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I was the original prodder. (Sorry; I'm not familiar with the rule about previous AfDs, and even if I was, Jayla's discussion page doesn't mention the previous AfD attempt; and I don't know what the "train wreck" AfD resolution actually means or implies for future deletion consideration.) -- Mikeblas 15:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you should always check the history before prodding, although if you overlook a previous AfD or prod, it's no big deal, as, in the worst case, the admin will probably just go ahead and convert the prod to a new AfD. I just thought I'd try to save time. As for "train wreck", that was just the closing admin's wry assessment of a discussion where people were listing individual articles as keep or delete, and there was no way to pick-and-choose a clear consensus out of the mess. The important part is that he said, "This closure is not a judgement for or against any one article, please re-list seperately where appropriate." Which is what we're doing now. Xtifr _tälk 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, or redirect to ANTM5 per other case precedents. Ohconfucius 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, reality contestants are inherently notable and meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:BIO says nothing of the sort, and your "argument" has already been shown to be based on a falsehood here. wikipediatrix 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Per WP:BIO: "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Reality contestants meet the little line items if you need them for further reference. Please cease with the incivil accusations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable tv personality JBKramer 18:24, 17 November 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. --Core desat 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thamesbank

Propaganda piece, almost certainly self-promotion. No references to help us judge their notability. -- RHaworth 05:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - At beginning article appears harmless but later on, the point they are trying to push appears. It appears that the point of this article is to push the point. Delete it. Chris Kreider 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete A primary concern for Thamesbank is that there is no single body that is collectively responsible for ensuring the sustainability of the River Thames. It is therefore vital that the London Plan and Blue Ribbon Network secure this provision. That's pretty much the thesis statement of the article. Shits all over NPOV. Tractorkingsfan 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertising, Wikipedia is not a propoganda site. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Reads like a press release. --Folantin 13:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Violates NPOV] and IMHO WP:NOT#SOAP.SkierRMH 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per violation of many rules. --Wizardman 17:05, 19 November 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. --Core desat 23:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateway to the Sphinx

Unnotable book written by a high school teacher. Fails the proposed test at WP:BK Eusebeus 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Page (Ruamrudee International School)

Delete - 33 non-wiki ghits, verifiability issues. MER-C 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Looks like it might be a book. Has some cites at the bottom, I think it is on the line. Chris Kreider 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails all notability tests. -- Kicking222 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability. Sandstein 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete; it is a real book, however it fails the WP:BK criteria.SkierRMH 05:04, 15 November 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. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Page (Ruamrudee International School)

Unnotable high school teacher. Could be speedied since there is no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway to the Sphinx. Eusebeus 12:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Writing a book doesn't count because of vanity presses. So tagged. MER-C 12:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - I gotta agree with MER-C's call. Chris Kreider 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, fails WP:BIO, MER-C said it all. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:16, 14 November 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 Notability discussions aside, the promised sources were not forthcoming. If the various claims to notability in the original version are sourceable, get in touch with me for a reevaluation. ~ trialsanderrors 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alicia Pan

Questionable notability, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Should be a bot that looks for "One of . . . 's rising stars" and "fastest growing companies". Tractorkingsfan 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, never heard of her in the local media in my country. Advertising feature. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable musician in Taiwan. Recoreded with Universal Music and a signifficant smaller label that has a distribution arrangement with EMI. --Oakshade 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep re Oakshade, provided references are forthcoming. There's plenty of notable musical acts in my country that I've never heard of, too. But let's get some references. Drjon 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the ChynaHouse/EMI partnership, I'm trying to remember where I read that. So far I can only find an Ad Age article preview [20][21]. Working on other subject specific refs. --Oakshade 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I still stand by my "delete" vote. Take a look at the author of this article. His only other entry is a clearly autobiographical article about himself as a rising star of the producing world. And guess who one of his clients is: Alicia Pan. He's trying to advertise, and the claims of notability are unsupported. Tractorkingsfan 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should have been reduced to stublength to get rid of the sourceless and copyvio material and then speedy deleted for failing to assert notability. If this AFD nom fails, I'll verify whether it is proper to speedy an article after a AFD and, if so, nominate it. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom and Tractorkingsfan. To those advocating keep, please note that an EP is not an album, and she only has a single EP to her name. Fails to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria, (additional reason added Nov 19:) fails to assert notability.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be now noted that this user's "Speedy" change due the article failing to assert notability came after they deleted the version that asserted notability [22]. --Oakshade 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a basis for deletion. Someone could have released only EP's, or even just a single, and be notable. --Oakshade 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's true. I was simply stating that the criteria she was asserted to have met was not, in fact, met. In order for her to properly be found notable, she needs to meet at least one of the criteria found in WP:MUSIC. The article itself does not assert notability in this way, and neither has anyone here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC also states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." Breaking Free was a charted hit in several countries, even making the top-10 in a couple, but I don't have the info if the specific Asian version performed by Alicia Pan charted in conjunction with those. --Oakshade 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the clincher, isn't it? I or Alicia Pan don't get a Wikipedia article for merely doing a cover of a charted hit. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If she is credited for the charted hit, whether it was covered or otherwise (WP:MUSIC doesn't excluded covers), that would be a direct qualification. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if the cover itself charts, then this qualifies her. Is there any evidence for this? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Breaking Free article, it made #4 in Singapore and we can assume that is the Asian version. I would like to find verification of that but so far I can't find a directory of historical Singapore music charts, even from the last few months. As for the honesty of the editors of that article, I will assume good faith. --Oakshade 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that. It says #4 for "U.S., Singapore." The Asian version obviously didn't hit #4 in the United States. So it is either saying that the original version achieved this position on both charts, or that the original and the Asian cover both happened to peak at #4 on their respective charts. It is not a bad faith assumption to think that may not be true (we needn't doubt the editors' honesty, only their accuracy). This is really reaching for elusive smoke signals of notability. If this article is going to stay, we're going to need something to cite. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources. And as a final side note, the Breaking Free article no longer gives any chart positions.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because you just deleted it [23]. Here's pre-Simões-slashed version for anyone interested [24]. --Oakshade 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my point. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you truely question the accuracy of chart positions cited in song articles and not trying to single this article out for deletion since this artist was listed as the singer of a hit song, better get to work because most song articles don't cite references for chart positions. --Oakshade 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTATOR Four days into this AfD, a user has deleted almost the entire article [25]. All verifiable material. This is highly inappropriate during an AfD as it could unduley affect editors opinions. Here is the pre-slashed version -> [26]. Please take this into consideration. --Oakshade 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate? The entire article was free of sources. Four out of five of the external links were probable copyright violations. There is no policy or even guideline that states an article should not be edited while undergoing an AFD discussion. Your claims an inappropriateness completely baseless, and your restoration of the deleted content is in violation of policy. Be more careful in the future when flinging around accusations like this. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All information that was deleted is varifiable. I leave it to the administrators to decide what actions during this AfD were inappropiate. --Oakshade 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion In response to the request at WP:3O, WP:RS says it all:

"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it."

Links to YouTube are generally being removed as so many YouTube videos are a copyright violation. If it could be legitimately shown that the copyright holder placed or authorized the placement of those particular videos, that's fine, but even then 4 or 5 links would be quite excessive. Finally, there is no prohibition against anyone editing during an AfD-in fact, if you examine the AfD template, it encourages editors to carry on editing. This edit does not appear to be any form of bad faith-anyone may remove unsourced claims, anytime. Seraphimblade 21:10, 19 November 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. --Core desat 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malik Hospital

No assertion of notability. Only 55 ghits, once one removes the ghits caused by a more notable hospital in Medan with a similar name. Dead end. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Written in first-person, poorly formatted, only assertion of notability takes the form of advertising. Tractorkingsfan 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as blatant spam, CSD G11 or Delete per nom. --Xtifr _tälk 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. shotwell 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per db-spam. SkierRMH 05:10, 15 November 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. --Core desat 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Irons

Contested prod; article makes no assertion of notability. Subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Edit history suggests this is a vanity page. shotwell 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, check ghits. MER-C 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per above comments. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 22:15, 14 November 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. — CharlotteWebb 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geek rock

Delete Superfluous Article Threatis 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Could be useful to musicheads, drawing attention to a connection between bands not often linked together stylistically. Has potential, needs to be worked on. Tractorkingsfan 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - the article is in desperate need of expansion (it needs to more clearly define "geek rock" as a subgenre and section of culture, with more firmly defined examples and exploration), but it's a valid and oft-used term within musical genres. Seb Patrick 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, there's a bunch of music genre stubs, but they mostly serve as category headers and are within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres, which seems to be expanding them, slowly but surely. Also, the claim "superfluous article" needs to be backed up by pointing out what it's superfluous to! Xtifr _tälk 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - valid subgenre. Not paper. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, expansion needed, valid subgenre. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Def needs expansion but as stated above, a valid subgenre. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment well, I want to opine keep, but this article is completely unsourced. The term itself is not sourced; the bands listed as examples are not sourced as being considered part of this genre. To be clear, I've heard this term numerous times, but the problem from an article standpoint is that there are no verifiable reliable sources to back this up, and WP:NOT paper doesn't exempt an article from needing to be verified.--Isotope23 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sources is not, however, a reason to delete an article. There is a difference, after all, between verifiABLE and verifiED. Yes, the article as it stands has no sources, and yes, it needs them. But a quick Google search will reveal that everything in it can surely be sourced given some time and work (which I'm willing to put in). This makes it different, therefore, to an article that is simply pushing original research. Seb Patrick 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually lack of sources is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete an article. There is a difference between verified and verifiable; right now this article is completely unverified and when I did something more than a quick Google search (I actually followed some of the links, etc.) I didn't see anything that met reliable sources or provided verification, so at least on the surface this isn't verifiable either (at least not from reliable sources). Again I'm not suggesting that sources don't exist at all (that's the reason my above statement was a comment and not a deletion opinion); but the important thing is to find WP:V sources for this article. I wasn't able to find any, but I'm hoping someone does because I am interested in seeing this article retained.--Isotope23 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the deletion criteria, it isn't. If an article appears unverifiable, the solution is not to delete it outright, but to find sources wherever possible. If such sources cannot be found, then deletion may be possible. But I could point you to a hundred articles on Wikipedia that wouldn't in a million years be deleted, yet don't have adequate sources or citations. Seb Patrick 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting off topic, but I'll just leave it that yes I agree with you, there are a number of unverified (and possibly unverifiable) and poorly verified articles that never will be deleted. It's unfortunate, but consensus can trump policy in some cases. In this case however I'd like to see this kept for now sourced if possible (and I've tagged it for needing verification), which looks like where this is headed. If it doesn't get sourced in a few months then that can be dealt with at that point. Besides, I'm the only one grumbling about sourcing... the original deletion reasoning makes no mention of it...--Isotope23 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Note - I've just done a major rewrite of the article in an attempt to make it seem more relevant (although it's still desperately short on sources). Note therefore that any comments after this will refer to the newer version. Seb Patrick 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think I'd heard of it as nerd-rock, but I had heard of it long before I'd ever heard of Nerdcore hip hop.--T. Anthony 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Valid article. Noted bands are associated with being "geek rock"[27]. While not overly recognized on a mainstream scale, it is indeed a real genre. My only concern, as mentioned by Isotope, is the lack of sourcing. I'll do my best to do some research to keep this thing alive.--ARandomHeretic 23:31, 14 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SATEK

Seems to be a student project with no further ghits. External project link is one page in Turkish Optimale ^Gu 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Zero notability, kill it. Tractorkingsfan 13:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. yandman 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone contested speed deletion on the grounds that it's neither a person nor a club, so "db-bio" can't be used... Delete then. yandman 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nice dodging of the speedy criteria. Trebor 22:08, 19 November 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. — CharlotteWebb 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick McCabe (rugby player)

Vanity Article Angolon It's cold out here, and there are wolves after me. 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Angolon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Needs sourcing and removal of some biased statements, but bottom line is he is an athlete for a notable team in a notable league in a notable sport. Shows up on google.Tractorkingsfan 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Also, witness the author of this proposed deletion's comments on the Talk: Patrick McCabe (rugby player). Seems to be a personal vendetta here. Tractorkingsfan 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment putting both {{prod}} and {{afd}} on the article at the same time doesn't do a lot to dispel that idea either. Nor does the fact that the only edits made by the nominator since August have been with regard to this. Hence the {{spa}} tag. Tonywalton | Talk 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, sources and NPOV cleanup is needed, this player is a notable subject. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Tractorkingsfan. Bad faith nom. DCEdwards1966 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Tonywalton | Talk 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Super14 franchised player, as such plays at the top level in one of the world's two top subnational rugby championships. Grutness...wha? 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've made some changes to the article, so it should read less like an autobiography. Tractorkingsfan 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and thanks to Tractorkingsfan for the rewrite. Meets WP:BIO as a professional rugby player. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, plays in Australia's premier rugby competition. Definitely notable. Lankiveil 04:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep notable player (and I know nothing about rugby). --Canley 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. NawlinWiki 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeMorgan's Theory

Non-notable band, could not find any references to any recordings, or articles or similar to assert notability. Not mentioned in all music guide either, the only relevant things I found was a coupple of links to the drummers myspace page. Delete Bjelleklang - talk 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete NN Bio Tractorkingsfan 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - And so marked. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:41, 14 November 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. W.marsh 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dice Wars

Browser game with no real claims of notability or sources. Fails WP:WEB and doesn't seem to have any independent sources about it either, failing WP:V. Wickethewok 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. MartinDK 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Can't find non-trivial coverage about the game, and could probably be classified as a Risk variant. --Sigma 7 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Per Nom. Chris Kreider 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retain - Sources issue is inherent to browser-based software; notability appears to be no less than some obscure historical figures or short-lived comics; while clearly derived from Risk, is no closer to Risk than Kriegspiel is to Chess. This article surfaces issues with wikiPolicy on web-based items not documented on dead paper, in particular, most or all of the articles in category:Flash Games. rewinn 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Source issue is not inherent to browser-based software; nothing about being online prevents or excuses the subject from demonstrating notability by citing verifiable sources. -Stellmach 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

well, o.k. but ... to the extent that discussion is allowed in RfD ... isn't it true that the purpose of "verifiable sources" to ensure accuracy & NPOV, two characteristics that are not at issue here? There are things about Flash games that such that they do not lend themselves to dead tree publication, yet it can not be true that the entire category of Flash games is not encyclopediac. rewinn 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I don't understand where you get the idea that accuracy & NPOV are not issues when dealing with flash games (they are issues in every single article, including and especially ones on flash games). RuneScape, for example is a browser game (though not a flash game), and it's (gasp) full of reliable sources. Using other articles to justify this one is not a sound plan - other articles may be deleted for the same sourcing reason, but we haven't gotten around to it. ColourBurst 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. By "not at issue here" I don't intend to assert that accuracy and POV are not important; merely that in this case there are no claims (at this time) of accuracy or POV issues. The assertions in the article are trivially verifiable. rewinn 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment "playing the game and verifying the game does what it's purported to do" is considered original research. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source.) In addition, the only things in the article are rules and strategy (not allowed by WP:NOT), and once you remove those, you're left with around 1 line, and that line isn't verified by a third-party source. ColourBurst 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retain - ditto rewinn. Ingle 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This game almost has cult status. A bad article doesn't mean there should be no article. Wouter Lievens 10:17, 16 November 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. --Core desat 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Reilly (NUIG)

Sole claim to fame is that he was president of the students' union at National University of Ireland, Galway. Student politicians aren't mentioned in WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People, but the lack of external published works makes him non-notable in my opinion. Demiurge 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - And I was my senior class president. And, so was somebody for every college verywhere most likley. WAY too many people for articles that have little practical use. Chris Kreider 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
delete - per Chris. yandman 15:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per Chris as well. Missvain 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN, as per nom. Or, Chrislk02 & I get our own pages!!SkierRMH 06:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete. Student politicians in Ireland exercise a lot of influence and predessors of Paddy Reilly include many Irish politicians and activists. Pat Rabbitte, Eamon Gilmore, Seamus Brennan, Michael O'Sheidhin (Shell to Sea) have all been involved in the Galway Students Union, Gilmore, Rabitte and O'Sheidhin as President.

Yes, but they're in wikipedia because of what they did afterwards, not for being student politicians. yandman 11:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete - The WP:BIO says "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Surely Mr. Reilly's being a Senator [28], as of right, of the National University of Ireland qualifies in the former category? - Fresher fan!

"national" here means "relating to the governance of the nation". Or else I could be included as being a member of an international organisation yandman 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

right. so you just want ure friends on here, yeah? typical.being an elected member of the Senate of the largest university in Ireland is worthy of note in itself,nevermind it being paddy reilly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.7.37 (talk • contribs).

If Mr Reilly really is that notable, then you should have no difficulty producing the "multiple independent non-trivial published works about him" specified by WP:BIO. Demiurge 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. By the way, this isn't a vote, so there's no point in vote-spamming. yandman 13:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by "reliable, third-party published sources" (see WP:Verify). -- Satori Son 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, student politics are not notable in themselves. Nuttah68 19:09, 19 November 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, default to keep. Proto::type 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moorkanade

Stub about a place in the city of Trichur; the article only states a family lives there that appears to have no claim to notability. --Nehwyn 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the article was just added. Shouldn't it be given a chance to grow? What it is missing is some verifiable sources to help establish the information, and a stub tag. -- Whpq 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Following the WP:LOCAL guideline, article such as this should get their independent page when their mention in the mother page becomes too large. This is not the case, as Moorkanade does not appear to be mentioned in Thrissur at all. Ordinarily, the info in this article could be merged into the mother article, but in this case, there is nothing to merge, as the article merely states a particular family (with no claim to notability given and no GHits) lives in that place. --Nehwyn 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I know whether you have proposed this AFD thinking that Morrkanade is a place in Thrissur City or a place in Thrissur District. Doctor Bruno 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the mother article per nominators remark above. MartinDK 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. IMO, all places that really exists should have an individual article. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something exists does not confer automatical notability (WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of all information) and do not automatically deserve their own article (WP:LOCAL). --Nehwyn 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about the articles about American places with less than 1000 population. Should they all be deleted Doctor Bruno 12:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, keep to the article in question. We're looking for a reason why this particular group of building should evade WP:LOCAL. --Nehwyn 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. How many people should live in a village to make it notable to appear in Wikipedia Doctor Bruno 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, stick to the article in question. This is not a village, and we're not here to discuss villages in general. We are discussing this particular place within a city. --Nehwyn 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Particular place within a city, which has more population than 1000s of places in America which have individual articles. The definition of "city" and "village" differs from America and India. Places in India have more people than towns of America. How are you very certain that this is a place within a city and not a village. Can you prove that. Have you been to that place. If you can't prove, then it is a bad faith comment Doctor Bruno 02:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles are evaluated based on their content. The article itself states this is a place within a city, not a separate community (such as a town or village), and therefore we treat is as such. As for your remarks about nationality, the current nomination is not based upon them, but simply states that no claim to notability is made in the article. Please, keep to discussing that. --Nehwyn 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the claim to notability with Albion, Illinois and Aledo, Illinois. They are called as cities. Can anyone confirm whether this is a place in Thrissur District or Thrissur Town Doctor Bruno 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think those articles are not notable, feel free to propose them for deletion. But on this page, please keep to the article in question. --Nehwyn 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Terence Ong Doctor Bruno 13:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep-as per all. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, express your opinion explicitly as to why WP:LOCAL should not apply. This is a debate, not a vote! --Nehwyn 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should this article be kept, if the present article in nominated for deletion. The village I work has a population of 20,000, which is almost 7 times as this place, but unfortunately that will not be mentioned in Google and hence is not notable where as a village with just 3000 people is notable if that is in America Doctor Bruno 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, keep to discussing the article in question. We're not talking about villages here, and nationality is not the issue. Lack of claim to notability is. --Nehwyn 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Albion, Illinois and Aledo, Illinois are cities. They are county seats and pass WP:V. utcursch | talk 12:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This also passes WP:V Doctor Bruno 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

True. The motivation for the deletion nomination is indeed not "unverified", but rather "makes no claim to notability". --Nehwyn 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete has no potential to be anything more than a stub. I grew up in a town of 2500 people which has an article at Longford, Tasmania and only does because it has a tourism industry, is historically important to the state it is in and is a major regional center for it's area. It isn't forced to rely on the fact it has a church and a family in it to try and assert notability. •Elomis• 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. utcursch | talk 12:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a Keralite. I'm residing in Kerala. Moorkanade situates in Kerala. The place is notable.

If some persons from England, Africa or Mumbai or Banglore says that this place is non notable, how can I agree with such foolishness since I'm a native wikipedian. If this place were in America or England, everyone will say that this place is highly notable.(Even smallplaces in England with a population of 1000 are included in this encyclopedia).But News report from Malayalam Newspapers are not available in google. That's why no google hits..!I'm ready to scan and upload hundreds of news report in Malayalam about this place. Since I'm a Malayalam Language journalists it's not a big task to me. But howmany of u know Malayalam...? I think it's a great challenge to create Kerala related or Malayalam Language related articles. Google hits are not available even to notable places. My humble request in this context is that Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search and wikipedians consider it as big big google hits..! Articles from English speaking places will easily pass verifiability test and notability test because of this reason. Is it really misleading..? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance in Asian related AFd's. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - you make some interesting observations. Clearly, google hits alone are no indicator of notability, and there are certainly challenges in covering non-english speaking countries in the english wikipedia. However, there have to be objective tests and standards for notability, verifiability and the rest. We can't accept the words of "native" wikipedians any more than we can take the words of any other wikipedian. There must be sources. -Kubigula (ave) 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as the article makes no claim of nobility, regardless if that claim is substantiated (which would be another issue). Claims of nobility would include, given stricly as hypothetical examples here, home to one of the top 10 riches people in India, church as been visited by the last 4 holy leaders, longest continually inhabited settlement etc. There are all sorts of cliams that could be made, but none are. In regards to the argument that if some other city has an article, ie Aledo, Illinois, so should this one, please see the essay, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability which may provide further insight into my (and likely others') dismissal of such an argument.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's hard to support the inclusion of an article about a "place" with no assertion of notability. I could find no english language sources with any information about the place. I appreciate that there are language barriers at work here, but we need more information to justify the article. -Kubigula (ave) 05:41, 20 November 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 - as the editor is struggling to get the article to meet notability standards it can be brought back to AfD in a while (or prodded if the author admits that it doesn't make it). Yomangani ^talk 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A New Ascension

Prod tag removed, so I'm bringing it here. This band does not seem to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, therefore I recommend deletion. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - very POV, uncited, etc etc. Chris Kreider 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have several news articles (hard copies) from local papers about this band. I cant find the same articles online. How can I show that this band is notable? What about ASCAP check stubs? There music was just purchased for "Undercover starlet"(sp?). A very small reality show in N.Y. Its easy to find on the web though. They're negotiating an instrumental mix for a new horror movie being made. If I could get something from the band, should I send it to Wikipedia to show its authenticity? I spend hours a day on this site (just as a reader) and I just want to add to it. Please help me imporve this page. I think this band deserves to have one...I just cant figure out how to show their notability. Should I list quotes from news papers?

...at the very least, they could be linked with a number of other more prominent pages.

Sorry for being a stereotypical noob.

I cant even post correctly. Sorry.

I was uncertain of the deletion policy for bands but tried to clean up the article all the same. I just checked out WP:MUSIC, maybe you should see if you can fill any of the criteria? If not then save what you have and once they get in the horror movie or on the reality show you can repost .
Good luck,
Markco1 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot. I really needed some help with this. I appreciate all your work on the page.

I've been reading non-stop. The more I read about "Notability" the more vague it seems. But I'll keep trying. They have the reality show already, I just dont know how to show that. There music is used in episodes but how do you prove that. The individual would have to actually watch the show, ya know. They also have pay stubs from ASCAP for liceasing deals and radio plays.

If the people who want to delete this page just check out Beatpick.com (easiest to navigate) they would see that they're professional, not some random garage band. Although they're no N'Sync and they havent gone platinum from their first CD...ha. Beatpick is just one publisher. They also scored deals through indie911, and other companies as well. They hooked up w/ MTV through T.J. Rising. Beleive me when I say that I'm no fan of MTV. However, even I understand that its a big deal when MTV accepts everyone of your songs for their catalog. They have done all this without a label--completely on their own. It just goes to show you, unless you sign with a label, people will always think your nothing.

How do I show all this though...Argh!

If their music is on an episode can you cite that in the article and point to an external website throught the cite. I assume there should be some sort of credit for that? To do a cite you can check out Nantucket ship that I cleaned up with some citing - it is pretty simple. I believe you just need to fill one of the criteria not all of them also I think that TJ Rising's connection to MTV is notable - Can you show that connection via a an external link? The more external links you can get to viable sources such as MTV the better you can prove their notoriety. My belief is that not being an "N'Sync" is a positive thing - lol.
Markco1 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much- I dont know how to do the links so I'll have to read up about it. Im def going to take your advice and check out your work on that page. Also, I'll go to the web site that plays the episodes of the reality show online. I'll see if they have credits at the end to show (in writting) that A New Ascension music was legally purchased and used. Its going to suck watching every episode...haha. If there are none, I guess I'll still make a link so that, at the very least, those who are familair with the music will recognize it when/if they here it. Linking to T.J. Rizing is a great idea too...you just have all the answers...ha. I was curious...should a put a picture, or their Logo (or whatever you call it) up? Maybe a link to their myspace and purevolume...??? Also, They have the same Web Desginer as TakeOver Records(Ben Harper's-[formerly from yellowcard]- label)...is that notable? haha. I'm looking for anything, anything at all. Ricky Spoons, drummer (A.N.A.) takes lessons and is friends with L.P. (drummer-YellowCard). John Wilkes is a close friend of the band (Drummer-Red Jumpsuit-Virgin)- i mean geeze...theres so many little obscure things about them...haha they KNOW famous people.. does that count?haha

ok time to work. thanks again. If you have anymore suggestions please do not hessitate.

BTW-"Notable" should be defined as any band that is not N'Sync.

I cleaned up the formatting a little for you. An external source would be a review in a magazine, or a website, or something. Have they put out an album? Unfortunately, not being N'Sync isn't an argument for inclusion. I'll give a conditional Delete at this point, unless sources can be found. --humblefool ® 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks-I'm going to add the sources and reviews when I go home. I'm currently at work. I have stacks of articles at my place. I hope I can remember how to cite work properly.

Give it a shot and we will help you out as much as we can. BTW four tildas will give your user name and date of your entry.
Markco1 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. Google search for "A New Ascension" band gets 19 hits. Also, not assertion of notibility is made; just being a Christian rock band from FL doesn't entitle one to an article Mitaphane _talk 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Week Keep As per WP:MUSIC Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable. It appears that section 6: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. (from what I can see The Summer Obsession was or still is signed with Virgin Records, went on the Vans Warped Tour and have a wiki page) or section 7: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. or section 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show - May apply to this article. The creator of this article is a newbie and appears to be trying hard to get this up to Wiki standards. Personally I only came across the article because was listed as a lonely sight. Markco1 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmylar 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)I didnt get a chance to cite anything yesterday. I hope i get a chance to before anything is deleted. Like i said i have a ton of info. Also, if the fact that Mark (bass) was signed to Virgin makes the band more notable, then It might also be notable that Jared Boice was signed to Vision sound (who discoverd The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus[Virgin]+Escher[no more])...they happen to be a Virgin Records affiliate. Its also where the band records. Plus, the band is professional. The deals they sign are equivelant to those a "Major Label" band would sign. They just make more profit (percentage) then a "major" band would. I dont think they should be over looked just because they MAY (or may not) have more sense then some bands that rush into a major label contract. The "May not," comes from the fact that they might be turned down by Wikipedia simply b/c they've Turned down majors/indie's in the past. Btw-like my SN? Im going for the forum-trendy "rip off" M.Shadows SN. Accept im doing it for J(Jordin) Mylar (we have the same first initial...ha)! yeah- I know I'm lame!

Weak Keep. I say give the editor the chance to do some thorough cleanup before the article id deleted. Verkhovensky 00:27, 17 November 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. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defendant_(Rock_Band)

Autobiographical content that fails WP:MUSIC. In addition, the article was originally misplaced under Defendant and was regenerated after being removed. --Sigma 7 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - And so marked. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - N.B. The original author is User:defendant. --Sigma 7 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. - crz crztalk 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Borromeo (Indian athlete)

Notability evrik ^(talk) 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment fails the google test, but if the article is substantially improved I would not oppose keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep if verified. - crz crztalk 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Borromeo won the 800m gold in the 1982 Asian Games (Link) in what was then an Asian Games record . I'll take the responsibility to expand this to a slightly longer stub by next week. Tintin (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Keep per Tintin Doctor Bruno 15:19, 14 November 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 and closed. --humblefool ® 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angels of Dunkirk

DELETE This article has already been merged as per the merger suggestion. There is now no reason to keep this article. As it relates only to characters within one part a computer game there is no real need to redirect. --Dave 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect I'm changing it to redirect as we speak. (what do you mean 'theres no reason to redirect'?) Armanalp 16:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's been merged, we have to redirect. --humblefool ® 21:44, 14 November 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. --Core desat 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elsie Ivancich Dunin

Non-notable (if only every college professor was notable to be on Wikipedia), see Wikipedia:Spam. Youngster of Germany 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

— Youngster of Germany (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would also like to mention Elonka seems to have many vanity articles concerning herself and her family... nothing personal.
Delete per nom. Little to no real content anyways, since Jimbo Wales himself had to go and remove most of it as original research. I believe other articles concerning this family have been apart of a heated discussion in the past, so lets just keep this AfD about this article. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Before anyone else points it out, Youngster of Germany does appear to be a "Single purpose account", who's first three edits are those that are required for an AfD. I'm sure someone will say he's a sock puppet or a troll. However, I feel the nomination rational is valid, regardless of the motive it or who nominated it. So, assume good faith, and all that jazz. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can assure I am no sock puppet. I have about 75 edits as an IP address. In truth, I did make an account to create some AfDs. Vanity article really grind my gears. Youngster of Germany 00:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN academic, and the article seems to be copyvio from here. Sam Clark 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — This version shows plenty of notability - Just look at all those references! Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Matthew, that's the part that Jimbo Wales removed. He said that the references were original research. Now, he's not "god", but considering he founded Wikipedia and the policy on that, I'd trust him to know what he's talking about. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - and? Your point being? It states she is notable (just as the page does now) and that is why I called the old revision. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I think you're missing the point of why original research is bad. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Note that the information mentioned above by MatthewFenton was removed by Jimbo Wales. Ehheh 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. The long-standing "professor test" would seem to apply here — I didn't know that there were professors in "dance ethnology", but if she is one (and at UCLA, a major university), she's presumably notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient citations and notability. --AndyFinkenstadt 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep- Plenty of notability. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I'm not a big fan of vanity but let's not slit our own throats over it and delete good articles. The unsourced stuff should stay out though. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Per AndyFinkenstadt and others. This strikes me as pretty clearly a retaliatory, sockpuppet AfD; absolutely no reason to AGF in the face of evidence like this. -- PKtm 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I'm a sock puppet, but okay. A sock puppet is another users second account right? YoG 05:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. As I noted above, someone would eventually say this. I don't see any evidence that one user is posing as two in this discussion, so it really shouldn't be an issue. Regardless of what one might think the motivation of the nom was, the deletion proposal is fairly sound, even if that is not our conclusion. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ned, you are in a prolonged and bitter dispute here with Elonka Dunin right now, the daughter of this article's subject. That, combined with the SPA nature of the nominator and your frequent commentary here, makes me feel that this is a retaliatory AfD, and it should be dismissed out of hand. -- PKtm 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the nom, I am not the nom, so I do not know the motivation for the nom. Regardless of any disputes at this time, the deletion rational is valid on it's own. I'm not the kind of person who would make a sock puppet and try to delete such an article just to "attack" another user. At the same time, I do not believe in avoiding a discussion that I know about in order to not hurt someone's feelings. I am confidant in my ability to separate the two situations and comment on them appropriately. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see how the subject of this article meets WP:PROFTEST. The criteria are that the person meets one of the following conditions: 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. 3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. 4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. 6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Which of these does Dunin meet? She sounds like she's doing good work, but she's just an ordinary academic, of which there are many thousands in the world. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like she meets them all. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Could you elaborate on that? What is the important new concept, theory or idea she originated, for instance? Where are the multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews of her work? Cheers, Sam Clark 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I have to agree with Sam Clark. This person has not made notable enough contributions to deserve an article. I don't find the fact that she has written several books in her field as carrying weight either — what professor has not published? Icemuon 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep,Per AndyFinkenstadt. Englishrose 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, because of the books and references he seems somewhat notable to me. bbx 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep well referenced, other than the fact Brad Patrick and some of the admins seem to hate Elonka, I cant think of a valid reason to delete this. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I am the author of this article. I do not personally know Elonka but her mother's life and her specialized area of Slavic (Yugoslav) dance ethnology is of interest to me as well as many academics and lay people who study folk dance. I understand that there were a few parts of the article that were not referenced properly but a majority of the article was pulled from actual newspaper articles and magazines as well as websites belonging to prominent folk dance organizations and academic groups; all these are listed in the "reference" section. In addition to her academic notariety, Ivancich has worked in Hollywood appearing in television variety shows, movies ( "A Star Is Born") and live productions. During her long academic career, Ivancich published several articles, papers and books, and has served as chairperson and keynote speaker for several dance organizations and groups. I am amazed to find out how political Wiki has become -- it is very disappointing to witness how quickly people will scrap an article without considering how valuable its content may be to others who are interested in a particular subject matter. I believe Elsie Ivancich Dunin's academic work, notable stage and screen appearances more than qualify her notability and right to keep her article. --Nanusia 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Can't see that this person has made more contribution than any other NN professor and the fact that this article as practically been reduced to a booklist. Iceeye 10:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable based on publications. WP:PROFTEST is only a proposed guideline; I for one consider it far too restrictive. JamesMLane t c 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty notable, and a significant figure in the study of folk dance. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:34, 18 November 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 Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, no consensus on the rest, so they will be kept by default. Yomangani ^talk 15:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, Bloc Québécois Shadow Cabinet, New Democratic Party Shadow Cabinet

Much of this, I feel, falls under WP:NOR. This isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, and is really original research. It's also unencyclopedic. GreenJoe 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOR, so many shadow cabinets?? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Verifiability/OR isn't the major problem here - you can find a list of these here for the NDP, and you can probably find the other lists. That leaves "unencyclopedic" as the reason (which is horribly vague), and to address Terence's concerns about there being multiple shadow cabinets, each opposition party's supposed to have one. ColourBurst 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete the above comment is right on. Verifiability is not the problem here, nor is this a matter of OR. Instead, the "shadow" cabinets of the various opposition parties (note that none of these is actually Her Majesty's Loyal opposition) are not particularly notable and certainly don't warrant a separate entry when they can be well covered at the main article space on the NDP, BQ, etc... Eusebeus 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename "List of..." These are all just lists anyway. Eusebeus is right that we shouldn't cover these shadow cabinets, but having a list of the members of same is perfectly valid. JChap2007 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment As ColourBurst points these lists are entirely verifiable and are most definitely not Original Research [29];

[30] so that is not the issue at all. −What personally makes me a trifle nervous is that the nominator, who supports the Green Party (based on his user page [31]), and who has edited Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, first tried to PROD the BQ and NDP pages but not the Green Party page. The same reasoning about NOR was used that time. I am glad to see that all the minor parties are here now though, so perhaps I am wrong to be a bit concerned. I think the information is very useful and should either be kept as is or merged into the NDP, BQ pages as Eusebeus suggests. --Slp1 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- I did try to PROD the GPC shadow cabinet page. I figured they should all be in one place for a central debate. GreenJoe 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I see it now. An anon had deleted the Prod by the time I got there. I apologize. Sorry. --Slp1 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    - No problem. :) GreenJoe 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep These pages contain relevent infomation that may be of use to people on Wikipedia, and the shadow postings are important in Canadian politics and are often mentioned in news reports on various issues. user: Carrottop 79 07:57, 16 November 2006
- This user seems to edit mainly NDP-related articles. GreenJoe 05:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Green Party, Keep the rest. A "shadow cabinet" is a recognized party structure in the Canadian political system, and is certainly wikipedic (as opposed to encyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia). However, the Green Party doesn't have any seats in Parliament, and thus by definition can't have a shadow cabinet. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Chabuk The BQ/NDP ones are real and made up of MP's from each party. The Greens don't have any MP's, therefore can't have a shadow cabinet. "Shadow Ministers" are the ones that ask the question in parliament to the ministers. Part of the Canadian system (if nobody got what I ment, keep BQ/NDP, delete Green Party). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:12, 19 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viola Thomas-Hughes

Prod tag was removed before the election of this local politician finished. I am bringing it here since she lost rather handily, and doesn't seem to be notable outside of the House race. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless other assertions of importance are made. Right now, the only thing in the article that asserts her importance is a title of comitteewoman in a township; that's not enough to pass WP:BIO Mitaphane _talk 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as it stands doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria.SkierRMH 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by "reliable, third-party published sources" per WP:VERIFIABILITY. -- Satori Son 21:11, 17 November 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, so kept by default. Yomangani ^talk 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aang Serian Drum

Notability of this media center not established. Prod tag removed previously. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made changes to reflect the level of establishment of Aang Serian Drum. Notably 1) AS Drum is the first center of its kind in East Africa. 2) The Center has been awarded funds by the United Nations and 3) National Geographic. And 4) I have added an external link to an article that helps establish the validity of Aang Serian Drum.

Weak delete. Although an admirable group; even with the additions, I do not think that it has sufficient notability. Also, the use of the web-site address as the caption to the picture smaks of WP:SPAM.SkierRMH 06:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

fwiw: that's an info box not frame around an image. hence it has a 'web' entry, obv needs filling in (hence someone reverted change as vandal/mistake). please check before such claims. ⇒ bsnowball 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~. As I yet have to fully comprehend what policies exist on Wikipedia I cannot take either side, although personally I believe that it is better to cover a in that location rare group then dismiss them for being non-notable. How is notability applied in this case? How well-known they are in the USA? How much effect their work has? --Nyp 09:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- Changed to Keep. --Nyp 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

<Dont delete>": This information and the projects it talks about are of tremendous value and very relevant to issues here in the US. Also dont agree why we should always see issues as they to US. Youth movement around the world, musical responces to AIDS, preservation to world Indigenous cultures and the global information society such as this one in Tanzania is a valuable lessons and links that student, faculty, researchers could use to understand a wide array of issues such as social change, political movements and globalization. These young people like many in this world today are using technology to create local solutions and this is a great initiative. It should be noted that in countries like Tanzania, the ability to create and produce media is not as easy as here in America. Most importantly, these media messages are crucial in disseminating vital information such as AIDS education, environmental destruction, good governance and gender issues. This is a gun, but a peaceful gun against all forms of injustices* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrafiq (talk • contribs).

The web-site address caption referred to above has been removed. And somebody just put it back.

Keep on pioneer in the particular area. now some independant verification, pls keep in mind how little attention r o w pays to the area hence paucity of info. &, you'll never guess, of course WP:BIAS ⇒ bsnowball 12:27, 18 November 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. --Core desat 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action Heroes

Appears not to meet WP:MUSIC: only cites given are to music-db.org and an article in a blog. The Anome 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: article proposer has posted a comment claiming notability on this discussion's talk page, which ends with "See any my space pages to verify content above." -- The Anome 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the article asserts notability all right, but it's not enough merely to assert notability; it must be proven. Demiurge 21:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and if you dig into it, the quote's from an ad agency's promotional blog. --humblefool ® 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - given Demiurge's note and the fact that it fits the db-spam criteria.SkierRMH 06:26, 15 November 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 Bosco Seva Kendra —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 02:04Z

[edit] Anuragam

Admirable organization but according to Google unfortunately non-notable. Full of Original research MartinDK 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - The nom says it all. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Indon (reply) — 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as orginal research and non-notable. Hello32020 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep-Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Widely circulated news papers in Andhra Pradesh are in Telugu language. News reports from Telugu dailies are not available in google eventhough it have lakhs of copies. In this contest we have to consult with wikipedians from Andhrapradesh. Let them to tell the organisation is notable or not...! Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Definitely not Original Research. It is pretty well verifiable. Can't imagine as to how few guys thought this as original research Doctor Bruno 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everything above and it seems spammy. •Elomis• 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Bosco Seva Kendra. utcursch | talk 12:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Keep - nileena's logic strikes me.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - wow it sahould perhaps be userfied or "organization about me"-fied.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:40, 18 November 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. W.marsh 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thelibertines.org Forum

I'm suprised this even exists, but if it helps and contains valid information (it seems to know more than I do) then leave it be. Take out a bit of crap and the word "enigmatic" and I think it's ok. Enlightened me to "Piss Me Off" and I guess it links other bands to The Libertines, who supported over the time etc.

Lucyhmm 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remeber an article on thelibertines.org already being deleted. However, if my memory is faulty, this does not seem like an article for wikipedia. It has a list of users and stuff like that. Kind of strange. Deleted the prod so i figured i would put it up for AFD Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - If my nom did not give it away, i think it should be deleted. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Very strange. delete. yandman 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The initial article was speedily deleted because it was just a page with one or two lines of abuse. It needs work, and once the ridiculous list of users is removed and the article is referenced I cannot see any reason to delete. 217.43.196.55 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I appreciate your quickness to cleanup the list. However, my nomination should have been a little more complete. It is a forum for, "Although the website at thelibertines.org has since ceased to exist". I do not see how this is notable. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This site fails WP:WEB. -- Mikeblas 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thelibertines.org forum has been crucial to the success of both The Libertines and the British music scene over the past few years. Arguably it's importance has waned over the past year or two, but as has been stated on the discussion page the forum has been mentioned in many music books and magazines, as well as other wiki pages and therefore it seems common sense that it should have it's own wikipedia page. It seems to me that those requesting it's deletion are doing so because they have little awareness of the subject's importance. One of the key uses of wikipedia is to educate and so it is illogical to delete this entry because of a lack of knowledge about the forum and it's associated subjects. As has also been previously mentioned, I'm sure that the page will be cleaned up, with references and the such added. 87.86.104.115 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Sarah

Delete per WP:WEB. I do like above assertation that the forum "has been crucial to the success of the British music scene" Thank heaven for that, I'd hate to think of British music failing to exist if the forum goes away or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from above I clearly stated (and others have done in the discussion page of the actual wiki entry) that it has been crucial to the music scene in this country over the past few years. This is undeniably true when you consider the bands that have had success as a result of promotion/discussion on the forum (see actual wiki article for mentions of these bands), and is supported by the books and magazines in which the forum has popped up - notably the NME and Anthony Thornton's 'Bound Together' bio of The Libertines. The forum stands out as being one on which the members of many bands (Razorlight, Thee Unstrung, Babyshambles, etc), club promotors, music journalists and photographers have frequented. 87.86.104.115 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Sarah

Note Please sign your comments. Otto4711 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Alot can be said about this users attempts to be save this article through the proper channels. They are trying there best. However, it is not enough to retract my delete vote unless the claims can be cited. Feel free to offer to help this user, it appears as though they could be an asset to Wikipedia. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, help or advice would be much appreciated. I have not contributed to the page in discussion myself, and have never contributed or edited a wiki page so I have no idea how to go about adding citations and references, but I understand that those who have contributed to the page are making every effort to add the missing info SarahRoe 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I don't see notability. If important in the development of a band, a sentence or two could be added to that band's article to make note of it. It doesn't stand well on its own as an article when evaluated by the standards set out in WP:WEB. Slideshow Bob 14:53, 15 November 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. Protologism. El_C 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mx. (gender-free title)

Non-notable protologism. Deprodded. Weregerbil 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: per nom DCEdwards1966 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, only source is a user-editable dictionary. Demiurge 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not even close to notable. SnowFire 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Unable to find any other source than a user-editable dictionary. Dalassa 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't delete: It's mentioned in two Wikipedia articles: "genderqueer" and "androgyne." Sources are slightly harder to find on the Web because the abbreviation Mx or MX also has other, more common meanings, but try Googling "Mr. Ms. Mx. gender-neutral" and you will find plenty of citations. Also, at least one registered user, User:Mx. Terra, identifies him/herself that way. [[Sssuuuzzzaaannn 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]

Comment. That may well be true, but one user is still not even close to notable. Googling your suggestion yields a mere 238 pages total, of which most seem to be false hits; there are precisely 4 sites yielded by your suggested search in Google's top 10 of them that actually are about the term, and one of those sites is Wikipedia. SnowFire 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, NN protologism.SkierRMH 06:29, 15 November 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. No evidence of notability outside the reality show has been presented. --Core desat 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke Staricha

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. (Though, this article calls it a "dramality t.v. show".) Hasn't done anything notable since losing. Didn't do anything notable before losing. Mikeblas 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That and I'm pretty sure she started the page herself. Delete, non-notable Missvain 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. There are so many reality TV progs around the world at the moment, and each with, say between 15 and 20 contestants... that's 14 to 19 losers... that's like a gazillion pages on Wikipedia about people who are otherwise non-notable, and indeed non-notable period. Take the mighty axe of deletion to all, I say. The only purpose it serves is to promote non-notables, and we don't suffer that from any other group of so-called celebrities, do we? Rant over. Cheers. Bubba hot ep 23:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Longstanding precedent is that only winners of reality tv shows are notable unless they have done something else noteworthy. JoshuaZ 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per ample precedent, non-notable game show contestant. Xtifr _tälk 04:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom... And isn't it enough that the losers are already listed on many of the show's pages?SkierRMH 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Reality contestants are inherently notable by virtue of being on a widely-watched program. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing in WP:BIO to support this position, as already deconstructed here. wikipediatrix 17:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Per WP:BIO: "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Reality contestants meet the little line items if you need them for further reference. Please cease with the incivil accusations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Why are you leaving out part of the sentence? What WP:BIO specifically says is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" and then goes on to spell out what constitutes "notable". Next time you quote policy, try not to leave out the part of the sentence that doesn't agree with you! wikipediatrix 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      - What relevant part am I leaving out? The sentence agrees with me, so I don't have to hide anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Would you have a Wikipedia page for someone who was interviewed for a news story? Vpoko 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable tv personality. JBKramer 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I respectfully disagree with badlydrawnjeff's assertion that "Reality contestants are inherently notable by virtue of being on a widely-watched program" (emphasis mine). I know this was proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Reality Shows Redux, but it did not receive community support. Subject does not appear to meet the current requirements of WP:BIO. More importantly, there are no reputable, reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 20:56, 17 November 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, then dab —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 01:52Z

[edit] Chem

Article is full of WP:OR. Very confusing situation as the talk page says the correct word is Kemet. Article may have been started as a misunderstanding of the whole subject. No sources given, notability rather unclear MartinDK 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

oppose: your suggestion is unfair to the people who have contributed thus far. 90% of wiki articles have no sources deleted so good luck having them deleted, also on notability: this is simply a specialist topic. We are also trying to pull together a Chemistry (etymology) article in which this article may play a modest role. I am not participating directly in this matter because of past run-ins with people eager to delete stuff but why not have the article redirected to Min (god)? See also my comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chemistry_%28etymology%29 V8rik 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article is about black soil in ancient Egypt. So is the Kemet article. I was reacting to the tagging of the article as original research and the fact that the word Chem appears to be the incorrect word for that subject. If this can play a modest role in your planning of a future article then by all means do so. I do not object to that at all. But the article cannot just sit there as it is now which is why the confusing situation over two articles dealing with the same topic must be resolved. I leave it to my fellow editors to judge that. MartinDK 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say redirect to either Min (god) or Chemistry and use the other bits that are correct in the articles they fit into (such as kemet). And just get rid of that chem = cool stuff at the bottom. --humblefool ® 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Kemet, and then delete. --Tango 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete: As I stated on the article's talk page, all this "article" consists of are layers of uninformed speculation that builds upon more speculation that goes back to an old and long discredited error, adding up to a very dense folk etymology. IMO, the article has very little validity beyond showing what can happen if sources are not cited. If there is anything of genuine importance (which I personally doubt, but if...), it can be put on some other article(s)' page. Flembles 14:38, 16 November 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. Nomination withdrawn after the article was re-written. utcursch | talk 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nagarvadhu

~~Unsourced original research. Link under "resources" is not working, no relavent G-hits, reads like a POV essay~~ Akradecki 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- Excellent rewrite, nom withdrawn. Akradecki 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The subject seems genuine and I've added a newspaper link. --Mereda 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete Massive POV problems; Many of the Internal Wiki links are inappropriate or ambigious (Institution, Priest, Divine, flavor). One newspaper article doesn't seem to be adequate for Notability.SkierRMH 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The current article on courtesan is a mess as well and that lacks any Indian perspective. This one needs a rewrite but it's a start, and there are some English-language sources that meet WP:V. There's also a well-known Hindi book (some call it a classic) Vaishali ki Nagarvadhu by Acharya Chatursen which I've linked to Ambapali. Mereda 10:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Merge with and Redirect to Devadasi Doctor Bruno 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Re-written. utcursch | talk 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - pov is not a reason to delete.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acephala (band)

Non-Notable band Missvain 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - I feel bad that i keep putting speedy on all of thses but when I am on new page patrol, these I would have marked these pages then. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:39, 14 November 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. W.marsh 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afformance

After much research, this band is non-notable Missvain 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Just a brief blurb on the band that has no notability. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no discog, no tours... hang on, no claim of notability. Bombs WP:BAND in my opinion. Bubba hot ep 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bubba hotep, unless evidence of notability provided before the end of AfD period. (It might help to know how their name is spelled in Greek. I would like to help avoid systemic bias, but I've got nuthin' in this case.) Xtifr _tälk 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete fits the "db-band" criteria.SkierRMH 06:42, 15 November 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. W.marsh 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Dynamite

Non-notable. Guy features a link to his own personal webpage and the band showed no notability via-search engines that I could find Missvain 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - A band not worth a speedy. Article has some concent, at least attempts to assert notability. but does not appear note worthy enough to keep. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, although it has more background and history than most "just-signed-band" articles, that's what it boils down to. AMG has nothing on the band. No sign that they meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Come back when you make the charts or release your second big-label album, guys. Xtifr _tälk 04:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. More importantly, no reliable third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:03, 17 November 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. Andrew Levine 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neem Karoli Baba

non-notable and non-verifiable miracle worker, maybe a local celebrity, but evidently not notable enough to deserver a Wikipedia article Skobelief 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, speedily in my opinion. Article cites references. Neem Karoli Baba is the guru of Ram Dass, Krishna Das, and Bhagavan Das, three of the most famous American Hindus. google search. Placing afd notice was User:Skobelief's 18th edit. I don't know who he is a sockpuppet of. — goethean ॐ 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Seems valid! Missvain 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ultra-speedy instant Keep Notable person - several books written about him. Well known in the U.S. and in India. Can an admin do this quickly? Clearly this is an abuse of the AdD tag. What's to keep people from putting an AfD tag on anything? ॐ Priyanath 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- comment: nothing stops people from tagging for AfD; that's why we have debates before deleting tagged stuff. What's notable to me may have been tagged by you; the discussion is to determine whether it's notable at large. --user:Qviri 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - comment: I understand, but the subject seems so obviously notable, universally and at large, as the comments here declare, that it appears to be an abuse of the AfD process to me. Are five speedy keeps, two keeps, and no deletes enough for an admin to speedy keep this article? ॐ Priyanath 18:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (T • C) 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep -- A local celebrity can't have a book about him by several notable writers and connections in New Mexico! -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Hu12 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, clearly notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Seems to be a bad faith nomination --N R S | ^T/_M\^B 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Snowy Keep, this is clearly notable enough.-- danntm ^T _C 20:01, 14 November 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black and White (trance duo)

Non-notable, from what I can see. Small reviews and super-indie released label. Nothing that impressed me enough to consider them notable, but, thats just my opinion! Missvain 17:40, 14 November 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. W.marsh 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anililagnia

Apparently unverifiable: seems only to exist in lists of rare words which don't appear to cite any reliable sources as evidence for this usage. -- The Anome 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Chronophilia. From google it seems to be widely used with a consistent definition, even if it was a neologism in the first place. Demiurge 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment no to Gerontophilia. Anomo 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Gerontophilia. Unverifiable as its own article. -- Satori Son 18:30, 18 November 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. -- Steel 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CUBAN B

Non-notable band. Information on wiki page is copied directly from their own website. Missvain 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - yet another speedy nomination from me. No assertion of notability(a7) but reads like an advertisement for the band with horrible pov. So, spam(g11). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 14 November 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 (A1/A7) while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diemona

Non-Notable band Missvain 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - And my nominations for speedily deletiong non-notable bands continues. Very short article with little or no context (a1), no assertion of notability (a7).Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 14 November 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 speedily deleted as recreation of an article about nn-band (A7) while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Nerd Special

This is a very non-notable band! Missvain 18:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - I enjoy pasta and play an instrument, wheres my article? Speedy delete and so marked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:33, 14 November 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 - reliable sources haven't been provided. No reason it can't be recreated should such sources materialize. I think the effect on free speech will be minor enough to allow deletion to take place. Yomangani ^talk 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Buddy" (Paranormal creature)

Non-notable parannormal creature. Only source provided by the author of this article appears to be 2 user submitted reports to a the Weird New Jersey website -- No Guru 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per non. A paranormal creature that was only mentioned in a state-local magazine. If the creature is actually notable in this town, then you can give a one sentence mention of it in the Andover, New Jersey article. - Tutmosis 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep I guess. Magazine coverage pushes it just barely over the notability threshhold. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The coverage is not in reliable sources nor is there any indication of general notability. JoshuaZ 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep 1. Sourcing: the 2 user submitted reports on the website are in addition to actual print coverage mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the reliability of the source is moot. Wikipedia is not a primary source, so as long as sources are properly cited, the reader is more than capable of judging the information for herself. 2. Notability: The subject matter is of a specialized nature that is not necessary interesting or appropriate to a reader interested in reading about the town itself. 3. Deletion as "Chilling Effect" on free speech: It is difficult to find sourcing since most information on subject is transmitted through local anecdote, however deleting the page will effectively deter others who are in a position to contribute more primary source information from contributing. UnderdogBA 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Among other issues reliability is a problem. Articles should be sourced from WP:RS sources. If they aren't thats a de facto WP:V problem and a strong indicator of a lack of notability. Almost by defintion, if something is notable it will have reliable sources that discuss the topic (cf for example Big Foot). Furthermore if "The subject matter is of a specialized nature that is not necessary interesting or appropriate to a reader interested in reading about the town itself" then that is an argument if anything for further non-notability- people who care about the town don't even care at all about this sibject. Finally, the claim that deletion has a chilling effect on free speech has no bearing Wikipedia policy. A) Deletion doesn't have any chilling effect. B) More importantly Wikipedia is not a free speech zone but an encyclopedia, please see WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this entry has no reliable sources, the ref ain't much more then a blog to me.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:41, 18 November 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 while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coral (gambling)

It's a one sentence article and the subject is dealt with in the parent company article Gala Coral Group --Starrycupz 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - And so marked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:31, 14 November 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 01:45Z

[edit] Tree Gnomes

{{prod}} was removed, then readded. Since re-adding the tag is not allowed, I've moved this here. I agree with the initial prodder, this is fancruft and should be deleted. Original prod reason: Per WP:FICT, not substantial enough for an article. UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom - rogue RuneScape subpage. I was the one who reprodded it after Pyrospirit deprodded. See the article talkpage; Pyrospirit does not oppose deletion after a short discussion. Since deletion is pretty much inevitable, I reprodded per WP:IGNORE/WP:SENSE rather than opening the 10,000th RuneScape related AfD. Tree Gnomes are involved in (AFAIK, i'm a bit nooby in the game) about three game quests out of more than 100, therefore they are notable only by satirical standards. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - As this article is useless to non-players, it should be removed as funcruft Mamyles 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge & redirect to RuneScape combat or something. --Czj 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- This article has absolutely nothing to do with combat. The closest article we have to it is Runescape locations, and even that wouldn't fit properly. Mamyles 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced, WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If we can't have an article about RuneScape races in general (which I'm sure we can't because they aren't very notable and you can only play as one of them), we don't need articles about individual races. Dtm142 01:51, 18 November 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. W.marsh 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Association of Foreign Title Holders in Malta

I don't see that the subject of this article meets notability guidelines. Notablility is not asserted in the article (which is not properly referenced and not written in a neutral manner incidentally). Imperfect tool though it is, Google only returns 45 hits (!), Wikipedia mirrors in the most part[32]. Delete --SandyDancer 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The names really seal it for me, delete. --humblefool ® 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable social club. Demiurge 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Group vanity piece...NN...SkierRMH 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete; or merge into maltese nobility if that has survived the last AfD against it --- Simon Cursitor
Delete obviously. Marcus1234 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are a glut of similar articles on "Maltese nobility" created by the same author, in much the same style. Considering the clear "delete" vote here, is there any way to speedily list a number of related pages for deletion? --SandyDancer 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See here [33]. --SandyDancer 20:07, 15 November 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 as G3, vandalism. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic t3h fucker/pervert

Vandalism much?

Speedy Delete - G3 and so marked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:29, 14 November 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 unsourced. Setting a redirect seems to be ok, I just don't know where. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaitō anime

non-notable anime genres. Azump 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Monguis 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as there are no reliable sources to verify that such a genre exists (or that the term is even used to refer to such a genre). NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Conditional: Keep if it can be sourced/cited; Delete otherwise per WP:NOR. --Czj 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A Google search of "Kaitō anime" reveals only one unique hit that isn't a Wikipedia mirror; taking away the macron on the o, there's no Google hits at all. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The extended ō is often written as 'ou', especially by people that have not formally studied Japanese. There are a handful of relevant hits on a google search for "kaitou anime" if you use quotes, but not enough to convince me that it's in common use (as an anime fan myself, I've never heard the phrase used). Ironfrost 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying Japanese, I get 300-odd results for "怪盗アニメ", which mostly seem to be relevant hits using the term to describe series like "Mouse". That said, 300 results isn't many, and it's fairly common in Japan to classify titles with one-off neologistic genres, so the fact that a word has verifiably been used does not necessarily mean that a recognised genre exists.
The real problem with this article, however, is that the list of anime supposedly classified in this genre is unsourced, making this look worrying like original research - if that's the case, it should probably be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per NeoChaosX . Edison 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into a more suitable article, kaito do crop up as protagonists of anime often enough to be mentioned on wikipedia but I don't think enough to justify their own article. --GracieLizzie 17:10, 17 November 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. W.marsh 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Playstation 3 launch titles

The article is redundant (duplicate of existing information) since this list is already present at PlayStation 3. - Tutmosis 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Monguis 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of PlayStation 3 games. VegaDark 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of PlayStation 3 games, and specify the launch titles there if they aren't already. Excessive page. --Czj 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the redirect, so long as the launch titles remain on the main PlayStation 3 page. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of PlayStation 3 games. Redundant list. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of PlayStation 3 games per above. Noclip 23:53, 19 November 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 Speedily deleted as per restrictions on the actions of banned users, by Cholmes75 and (aeropagitica) 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another batch of Beacon House pages

For all the same reasons discussed in a similar AFD last night and on its related MFD, I am nominating these two pages. They should go away too, provided a banned user started both. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - If comment about banned user is true. I went ahead and marked them with speedy g5. If i am wrong, feel free to take it off. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:40, 14 November 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 as substantially similar content deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. — TKD::Talk 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M6d pistol sidearm

Delete WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a gamesguide - a fictional pistol does not require a page of it's own - a sentence on the main article is more than enought Charlesknight 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment this article has been speedied once already and recreated. A prod notice was added, but removed without comment, hence this AfD. Gwernol 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above.--Seadog 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Send that info to a gaming wiki. Pascal.Tesson 19:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a gameguide Gwernol 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. We've been over this already. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - thanks A Man In Black, thought this looked familiar...SkierRMH 07:06, 15 November 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. W.marsh 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kissa

This article refers to a non-existent Norse hero by referring to a non-existent Norse saga. Berig 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete. And please delete Kassemann as well. Haukur 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete under 'db-hoax' (hoax).SkierRMH 07:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a hoax, written to entertain friends. Please delete. - the author

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

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

The result was Delete. Dicdef. El_C 13:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenacity

Dictionary definition Alksub 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom as generally unexpandable dicdef. -- Kicking222 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - already in wiktionary.SkierRMH 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aristeo 18:50, 17 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexei Borodin

Delete as nonnotable young professor. In his CV there is a big section "Awards", which are actually various grants, no biggie. No eponymous laws, theorems, no sex scandals, etc. I.e., nothing to read or write about. mikkanarxi 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Feels like someday I'll be forced to write articles on all of the professors I've met in my life. KNewman 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Has Clay Mathematics Institute homspage, which says he spent a semester at the IAS. These two statements are not true of the average mathematics professor; but it's borderline. Septentrionalis 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notoble enough for Wikipedia inclusion Graemec2 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Pmanderson. Borderline on WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete No claim made in article that he is notable enough for an article. If publications, awards, etc were added, maybe he would be. I could only find 1 pub, which I added. Other data bases might find more. If he is a full prof at such a major university, that alone is almost enough. Edison 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Borodin is invited to speak at symposia all over the world, see [34], [35], [36] and [37]. Also look at the number of invited talks in his CV. I think this identifies Borodin as qualifying for WP:PROF criterion 2. Errabee 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Invited talks": you must be kidding. These are most prpobably regular talks at conferences, where people of course are "invited". Take for exampe a talk in 1999, a year after graduation. Must be really something, this guy, and he would be all over news as of now if it were something notable. Academics are making themselves "invited" all the time. This is part of their job description, to talk. Mukadderat 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
strong delete The phrases "done important research" and "prominent recent work" are not substantiated by any third-party evaluation. All professors are supposed to "do important research" Otherwise they are out of job, I guess. Mukadderat 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lots of peacock terms yet little to show for it. RFerreira 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--WaltCip 20:38, 19 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forum raid

Complete original research with no mainstream references Naconkantari 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - I have heard of the concept but it appears originial research as stated in the nom. However, i look at an article and ask, if i wanted information on this topic would I come to wikipedia first. If i answer yet, i feel that WP:IAR is a good idea in this situation. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or possibly Merge (as is already suggested in the article). No references at all, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue of dumb stuff people do on forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. Sandstein 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete original research, yes. Pointless, yes. --SandyDancer 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Radagast83 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, original research and patent nonsense. Anomo 13:39, 16 November 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, userfy on request if reliable sources can be provided. No verification of even basic claims of fact or notability has been offered, either in the article or in this discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon mysticism

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]}}

original research -999 (Talk) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep There are enough references to back the core claims. It just needs to be cleaned up. It is also still a stub, and there is much work to be done. --Tsuzuki26 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Fairly impressive references section at least. May be some originial research but then again, how many articles out there dont have a little? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's quite a fascinating topic, and with more reviews and research (per Chris) then this page will grow into something great. And per Tsuzuki, it's a stub, work could be done! Missvain 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Although fascinating the article is original research --Trödel 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Original research. Although it did make me laugh, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Lethargy 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete In reviewing the each of the references, there is not a single reference that supports the claims of the article. Almost all of the "See also" refer to blogs or blog-like sites directed by Tsuzuki san. There is a marked difference between a Mormon having an interest in the occult and Mormons having an interest in the occult as is being portrayed by this single editor. This is a subject which I have studied for many, many years, the thesis is made out of whole cloth. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The references point more to a club than an actual movement. Seems little more than trivia. Bytebear 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep I read the references differently than Bytebear and come up with the alternate result. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I checked the history page and find it interesting that those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already. It's hard to call this a good faith Afd. Otherwise, it'd be a weak keep, because I have doubts that the secondary sources are available to back up this as a movement within a movement. If they want to take this in the direction of Mysticism as an important element within Mormonism, then this article has real potential. But the abuse of procedure is troublesome--so I'll keep my vote at 'Keep'. 75.18.4.148 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC) — 75.18.4.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Userfy It's clear no useful work can be done on this article until the vultures leave. 69.155.229.46 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes when users lash out though anon IP addresses they say the most irrational things. An potential abuse of procedure would have been to speedy delete this article which I would have done if this was about a topic other than one I freqently edit. --Trödel 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep The editor above ( 75.18.4.148) hit it right on the head. I can see a cabal at work. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: 75.18.4.148 said: "...those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already."

Please provide examples to back this up, the only edits I see in the history since this was put up for deletion are requests for sources, copy edits, and my own removal of a weasel-worded paragraph and external links which seemed inappropriate.[38]

Labeling those who vote for deletion as a "cabal" or accusing them of "abusing procedure" seems to fit into the "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" guideline of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Remove your attacks or back them up. --Lethargy 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about any other editors' 'affiliations', just that it's the same old bunch that seem to work together often to promote the same POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"it's the same old bunch that seem to work together often to promote the same POV." you do realize you just did it again, right? --Lethargy 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If by "affiliations" you are referring to the fact that you are LDS, you should know that I share that same affiliation and I also see the pattern that 75.18.4.148 mentioned. --Tsuzuki26 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

By affiliation I was referring to Duke's assertion that we are a cabal. As far as seeing the same pattern, please put your money where your mouth is and link to instances where "those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already" --Lethargy 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The links were a target for systematic removal. The one who suggested the deletion of this topic was doing that a lot, and s/he didn't even touch the talk page. --Tsuzuki26 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, I removed blog and discussion group links once and reverted to it once. Where I come from twice is not a lot. -999 (Talk) 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who was JoeSmack then? --Tsuzuki26 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not me. And it is uncivil to imply otherwise. I don't use socks, I don't need them as I am usually right and fully supported by Wikipedia policy. :-) -999 (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Don't you know how to look at a user's contributions? That user has been here longer than I have (since 2004 in fact) and couldn't possibly be confused for a sockpuppet. -999 (Talk) 18:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"11:25, 14 November 2006 JoeSmack (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 87810661 dated 2006-11-14 19:09:19 by 999 using popups)"

"11:44, 14 November 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 87814018 dated 2006-11-14 19:25:40 by JoeSmack using popups)"

What's that? --Tsuzuki26 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Its another user reverting the article to a version by me. Take it up with JoeSmack who, as I said, has been here for some time. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I was unfamiliar with the notation. --Tsuzuki26 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am re-reading the references, and they do in fact discuss mysticism within Mormonism. They do no describe a group of people who practice such mysticism. In other words, this article is about a club that believes in mysticism. If you want to start an article Mysticism in Mormonism then that is one thing, but to create a wiki page for every yahoo group seems a bit extensive. Bytebear 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a stub about mysticism within Mormonism. If you would like to help with content, please be my guest. --Tsuzuki26 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep This appears to be a real movement. --Oakshade 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oak, can you please define "movement" for me? Also, a movement of what: young people, individuals, or Mormons? If they are Mormons, could you please point me to the evidence that convinced you of this position?

I have always interpreted a movement as something that is something that is measureable, observable within society, and definitive. Tsuzuki claims on his referenced blog to support this article that he is LDS and is the president of the Mormon club in his educational institution (high school?) and president of the Pagan club. I assure you, from an LDS doctrinal standpoint, this is not acceptable or recommended; it is a significant conflict. However, he/she is free to choose whatever he chooses, but it is not a choice of a Mormon, but as an individual. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vice president of the pagan club, actually, and I'm only a member of the LDS Student Association through my activity with the Institute, though I attend the leadership meetings as often as I can. --Tsuzuki26 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "movement" can be subjective, but in this case, from what I can deduce from the sources cited in the article, it seems to be at least a segment of LDS practitioners embrace some aspects of what is defined as mysticism and that can arguably be considered a "movement." I value your perspective on LDS as I'm not a member, but what I do know is that the LDS, like many religions, is varied and has many different perspectives (I'm Catholic and believe me, most Catholics aren't even aware of the literally hundreds of difference branches and philosophies that fall under just the "Roman Catholic" umbrella). It appears from the specific reliable sources (I'm choosing to ignore the sources like blogs and focusing on more standard ones like the Salt Lake Tribune articles), the existence of interest, both scholarly and lay, in Mormon mysticism appears real. --Oakshade 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - original research, non-notable, and possible POV fork. Just because because an undefined number of people with a Mormon background find an attraction to mysticism &/or the occult does not mean that the subject warrants an article. Where's the article about Lutheran mysticism? It won't be written because it's just not a noteworthy topic, even though I'm sure that there are probably some number of people that come from that background that are interested in mysticism &/or the occult, just as there probably are some people from every religious (or irreligious) background that are attracted to it. The only reason I can see to keep this article would be to provide yet another place for the tired "Mormonism is a cult" POV pushing, but this time it would presumably be a "safe" place to present that argument, since the article topic is already about cultish topics. I for one hope that Wikipedia will do better than to continue finding additional places to fight over that topic. -- FishUtah 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I would also add WP:SPAM as a reason to delete the article. Please also consider the edit history for Tsuzuki26 (talk • contribs), the creator & primary proponent of the article — this is really the only article edited by that user, and that user appears be playing a PR/advocate role for this obscure topic. -- FishUtah 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I have edited the article in question as 71.35.41.92 (talk • contribs) -- FishUtah 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I added more references. This isn't spam. It's a work in progress. --Tsuzuki26 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

References should never be placed in an external links section, they should be in the references section. --Lethargy 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If mysticism has a distinct flavor within a Lutheran setting, then by all means create the article. --Tsuzuki26 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My vote for keep is in no way a "Mormonism is a cult" POV as I, and I'm assuming most non-Mormans, don't view Mormanism in that way. Christian mysticism has a very long history and there seems to be some recognition of this branch of it. --Oakshade 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are correct that Christian mysticism exists as a significant topic -- however the "me-too" tact taken on this article does not support it's notability, just as any other article about |Fill in the blank with a denomination| mysticism would not without good, solid references demonstrating it is significant as a distinct topic. I'm also not saying that the article as currently written is inherently anti-Mormon, though I feel that it is an article with an agenda; I'm just warning that it is likely to be hijacked for "Mormonism is a cult" POV purposes. First and foremost this article is Original Research about an obscure topic that doesn't have the support of references that are generally acceptable on Wikipedia, but there is also additional reasons for removing it based on unwarranted POV forking, both within the Mormonism topics, as well as with Christian mysticism, syncretism, comparative religion topics. -- FishUtah 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Original research is not permitted here, and this looks like a POV-fork to me. Also, I can find no sources that assert the notability of this 'cult'. --SunStar Net 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Tsuzuki26. Edison 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR, NN, and completely unverifiable. Anomo 13:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Lean towards DELETE this article is really weak and doesn't, IMHO, sufficeintly defend the notion that Mormon Mysticism is a unique and discernable movement or approach to the subject of "Mormons who are also interested in mysticism."Balloonman 20:59, 16 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moaya Scheiman and Culinista

Blatant self-promotion by a chef. Culinista is a term he has invented to describe himself. -- RHaworth 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am his doing his PR, and felt that his Bio was missing here, the word is in use and is from a food history article on Salamanders that has been on the net for many years ( I now they are redoing his pages in anticipation of the new book-but I will see if I can find a current link), and the word is now in common use as it has been discussed in several forums as a word to be added to dictionaries. The citation is correct for the originator but if it offends to give credit I will remove the reference to coiner, but it seems silly.

I am also wondering why the Bio page has been flagged? I am trying to do a straight bio of a radio host,food writer, food historian who is well known in this part of the world. Before he was a chef he was a film director and published author. He is the Son of a famous American lawyer and would seem to be someone to be included..I thought...let me now before I go further here...thank you! JT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterTexperience (talk • contribs).

Comment. I am his doing his PR - translated into Eglish = yes, I admit that it is spam! -- RHaworth 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, neologism/advertising. Demiurge 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's nice when spammers make it easy. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - we don't want PR, we want encyclopedia articles. - Richardcavell 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. May be recreated is notability established based on reputable independent sources. Mukadderat 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand what you are saying, and would like to say that I was not aware that adding a bio of a person of interest was spam. I had been given the task of doing several bios only one of which was a chef. But this was my first article and I am now worried about contributing anything for fear of it being marked as spam-despite the belief that we are contributing encyclopedic copy. Since I have been asked to do this, will all my work be considered spam? and any Biographical material on Mr Scheiman also be? When this was flagged I had not got to his filmography and other particulars. is there a place in here for newposters to learn how to post, What am I missing? "I am doing his PR" should not preclude or eliminate useful encyclopedic information, should it? Is there a way that this information can be edited to adhere to guidlines?

I really think that being someone's PR representative is incompatible with writing neutral-voice, encyclopedic material about him. I don't think that you can contribute on articles that you have a financial interest in. - Richardcavell 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to politely disagree. People do decent work for money all the time. This is how the world runs. As long as a person follows the wikipedia rules of notability/verifiability/"neutral point of view", following policies WP:CITE WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. his contribs are OK. The major idea is that fo ar thing to be notable and information verifiable, it must be discussed in a reputable and independent source. Mukadderat 16:52, 16 November 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 into The God Delusion after rewrite. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Unencyclopaedic pro-creationist rant against science. Hopelessly and irretrievably POV. Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway. Gnusmas 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I have heard of that topic. Needs citations, needs work but a valid topic none the less. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. Snalwibma 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh please let's keep it just for the amusement value! Laurence Boyce 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - If it is deleted, other articles will have to incorporate it. ggilberd 14 november 2006 — Ggilberd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep The article is a rather accurate summation of the argument made by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. Contrary to the nominator's justification, this argument is encyclopedic, and is posed as a rather strong argument AGAINST religion, creationism and the existence of God, by Dawkins, who is a strongly anti-religious atheist. This argument is an expansion of Dawkins' earlier 1986 work in The Blind Watchmaker, in which Dawkins rebuts the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley as an argument FOR the existence of God. Alansohn 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- You may wish to go back and look at the article more carefully. That Hoyle and Dawkins used variations on the same metaphor to make contradicting points, that is encyclopedic (if, as the nominator says, "Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway.") The same cannot be said, I think, of "Obviously p(God|God)=1 and p(God|No_God)=0, which is indeed at least as low as p(X|No_God), but this says nothing useful." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and also look carefully at articles such as Russell's teapot, Last Thursdayism, etc. There seems to be an increasing perception that if twenty different analogies/rhetorical figures have been used to try and make a particular point, each of those analogies should be given its own article, rather than mentioning those analogies or a reasonable subset thereof in an article which is about the point they drive to(and of course, in NPOV fashion, about the counter-point to that point.) Even if the analogy of the "Ultimate Boeing 747" was notable enough to merit its own individual article, this article would still be bad, as pretty much everything except the direct quotes is original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge perhaps the first part (the non-OR part) into The God Delusion. Both that book and its author are unquestionably notable. But this topic, with respect to notability by itself without reference to the book, is not. (Perhaps in the future it might be.) Else delete. Baccyak4H 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. One particular argument made in a book is not presumed notable, unless good sources are provided to the contrary. Also, it's mostly unsourced, confused, and unencyclopedic. Sandstein 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. By all means let's add to the article but please not just supress anything that does not conform to the Atheism POV. The trope that anything that casts doubt on atheism is a "rant against science" should be avoided, if we want a rational discussion. Also there was a link to this long before the article was created, so someone (else) thought there should be an article.NBeale 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC) -- NBeale is the article's author.
- I'm not sure that 15 days ago is "long", and even if so, that does not mean that 71.4.131.226 was right in thinking the topic was substantive enough to support an entire Wikipedia article. By the way, please cease your accusations of anti-atheist bias, they are not CIVIL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, it's considered bad form not to mention that you are an article's author when participating in an AfD discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it's an argument against the theory of evolution. - Richardcavell 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Actually no it isn't (you might want to read the article) and that isn't a reason to keep an article anyways. JoshuaZ 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Weak Merge possibly notable enough to keep; but is very POV and may require merging. Hello32020 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The God Delusion is already covered; so are Creationism and the Argument from design. Unless and until this particular argument becomes a major topic of discussion in reliable sources, this isn't an encyclopedic topic. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The main part is quite clearly original research. If someone else uses that argument and it can be cited then fine but for now it is just OR. The first bit should be merged into The God Delusion. --Bduke 00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete more or less per Sandstein. The argument is simply not notable enough at this point. We have on Dawkins use of it and that's it (it actually seems to be just a variation of "who designed the designer" anyways) and the last part is definitely OR. If it gets picked up by other people then it might become notable. JoshuaZ 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The phrase is essentially a neologism created by Richard Dawkins. If important enough for a mention at all, it should be within the context of The God Delusion, not as a separate article. Joyous! | Talk 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete or weak~~ Merge to The God Delusion. An individaul argument from any particular book doesn't justify an article unless that argument becomes the source of debate or media coverage. -Kubigula (ave) 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Changing my position to straight merge. As edited, the content now clearly justifies merger. -Kubigula (ave) 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - When I said "unencyclopaedic rant" etc in nominating this for deletion, what I meant was that the article fails to meet Wikipedia criteria on at least three grounds. (1) As several people have said here, it's a small phrase, a throwaway remark, in Dawkins's latest book which does not deserve to be elevated to article status. (2) It's original research. (3) It seems to me to be an underhand attempt to push a particular viewpoint. The clue is in the title. Dawkins does not use the phrase "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", he refers to an "Ultimate Boeing 747". The addition of the word "gambit" is the sneaky bit, and the bit which condemns this article to irretrievable POV-ness. Gambit is "an action or remark that is calculated to gain an advantage" (Concise OED). By inserting this word the creator of this article is attributing motives to Dawkins in an underhand way, and the article itself represents a "gambit" on the part of the creationists. There is no such topic as "The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit". Gnusmas 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Factual correction Dawkins says (op cit p113) "My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." NBeale 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case I stand corrected (I do not have the book to hand) - but you cannot then say that Dawkins' statement "in its entirety" is as you quote in the article. That dismissive "in its entirety" is another clear demonstration of the article's bad faith and its status as an attempt to push one particular POV. Gnusmas 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. One person's argument for creationism without any widespread attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't think that it is written with POV and is referenced Graemec2 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. What follows "Dawkins does not explain what he means by statistically improbable." is not referenced and it is this that is original research and a POV. --Bduke 10:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's one portion of The God Delusion and this article reeks of WP:OR and WP:POV. Only 32 hits on google, not one hit outside of book reviews or excerpts, no MSM usage of the term, etc. Completely non-notable on its own. *Spark* 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Must we have an editorial commentary on every concept ever tossed out in every best-selling book? This is beyond OR, this belongs on a blog. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect (changed my mind from weak keep as I've edited it and truthfully can't pad this out any more even after re-reading chapter 4. It had way too much WP:OR so I've gutted out what I feel is the OR. Ttiotsw 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per KC •Jim62sch• 09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete essay. Mukadderat 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to The God Delusion - A subsection of a popular book does not need its own web page unless it is a book commonly referred to by its subdivisions (like the Bible). (What an ironic statement, especially from a person who shares Dawkins's viewpoint!) George J. Bendo 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually quite relevant - the Bible was written by many people, cobbled together willy-nilly and has internal inconsistencies. It can be picked apart because of this organic construction. The God Delusion is a single book written by one person and intended as a coherent whole. I've changed my mind now to Merge/Redirect too. Ttiotsw 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete There may be a little content worth explaining in a sentence or two back in the main The God Delusion article, but that could be done without a merge or a redirect. Edhubbard 23:16, 19 November 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. W.marsh 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kassemann

The article refers to a bogus concept with bogus references Berig 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many redlinks where there should be references. Too many unreferenced controversial theories. Too many secret societies. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In the unlikely event it's not a hoax about some bloke named Kassemann, it's still original research. Demiurge 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete In addition to Tonywalton's comments, most of the blue links are irrelevant to the topic (dates and places).SkierRMH 07:15, 15 November 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. W.marsh 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21 Lavitts Quay

Article about an unremarkable building; does not assert notability. (CSD-A7 does not cover buildings, that's why I'm not speedying it) Demiurge 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. Google gets 35 hits with "21 Lavitts Quay" -wikipedia and I think most of those are pages just mentioning the location, not discussing anything about it. Mitaphane _talk 02:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - who is right, and there should be an expansion to the CSD-A7 category (yes, I know that's quite controversial) or possibly defining CSD-A6 to include several of these 'non notable' categories.SkierRMH 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete just a street address. A notable building would have a personal name. Mukadderat 16:44, 16 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squick

A dicdef, and a dicdef attested from questionable sources at that. Guy 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep pending Sourcing it's a common term in the fetish community and its origins merit an entry. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what "pending sourcing" means here. It should be kept as long as there are no sources? ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  - My "Keep" vote is dependent upon verifiable sources being provided. There should be more than just USENET posts available. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Oh ok. ~ trialsanderrors 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary.scope_creep 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I've even used the term 'squicky' but wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Wiktionary is. Robovski 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Danny Lilithborne. I think the skull-fucking part should probably go, though. Dina 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - why is there no AfD template on the article? TerriersFan 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I added the AfD tag and relisted. Please keep open for another five days. ~ trialsanderrors 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, original research. Demiurge 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Danny Lilithborne. Rpresser 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- a competent entry for squick is indeed in Wiktionary. I would like to point out that the Wiktionary entry does in fact include printed-book citation of usage. Is it possible to make the WP article a redirect to the Wiktionary entry? Rpresser 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It does, but Wiktionary has already marked it for deletion unless verified. Clearly, if unverified, it would not belong here, but if it is deleted both here and there, where will researchers of the future look ? -- Simon Cursitor

The RFV page for the entry says:

Citations added easily enough. It's used as both a verb and a noun. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, much better. --Connel MacKenzie 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it will stay. Rpresser 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to wiktionary seems like a perfect solution. However, I read some of the Redirect information, and I don't think these kind of interwiki redirects are done. I suppose that too many connections between the projects could create problems if entries got deleted, moved, etc etc. -Kubigula (ave) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and improve. Widely used term and part of the social history of the fetish community. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dicdef. I honestly don't know how common the term is, but I've used the word for years exactly as the first sentence defines it (except that I think the words "otherwise unremarkable" don't belong). Either the term belongs in wikitionary, or it doesn't, but it doesn't belong here. Pete.Hurd 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless reliably sourced. Everything I looked at suggested that this is a neologism, albeit a relatively succesful one. At best, it's a dictionary def. I would suggest transwiki, but it's already on Wiktionary. -Kubigula (ave) 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Neologism, only reference usenet. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete As it's already on Wiktionary and is just a usenet neologism.SkierRMH 07:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's dictdef, and it's neologism. But it has escaped from usenet into the broader community -- it is used on a number of fanfic sites (and sooner or later someone will come loking for teh definition) and if it hasn't been used in the Guardian newspaper yet, then it almost certainly will be, repeatedly, in the next six months. It is, in effect, a meme-in-incubation, which will end up, in 200 years' time, as an example of 2-millenia-speak. -- Simon Cursitor

Come back when the Guardian has published it then, Wikipedia will still be here in six months time. Demiurge 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Mukadderat 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia not any sort of dictionary and this is a cruft-laden dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 18 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Pistol

Nominated for a speedy. Author keeps removing the speedy. No way that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Just another vanity article. Dipics 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per G11. Trash. Danny Lilithborne 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - vanity/spam. Sam Clark 22:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
From the leader in speedy delete, this is G11 News: 11 at 11. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Utter Vanity Trash.SkierRMH 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete--Varano 15:25, 15 November 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 - copyvio - Yomangani ^talk 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uk work permit

Copyright violation which hasn't been cleared up by only author. Topic is already covered by Immigration to the United Kingdom article. Cordless Larry 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as copyvio, then recreate as redirect to Immigration to the United Kingdom (since it sounds like it could be a valid search term). Confusing Manifestation 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical point: title needs to be 'UK', not 'Uk' (which would be the abbrevaition either for 'unknown' or 'Ukranian') -- Simon Cursitor

Yes, I would have corrected that, but I didn't see the point unless it survives nomination. Cordless Larry 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect per above. Trebor 22:06, 19 November 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misa Hylton-Brim

The notability of the subject is not asserted here, and the article does not read like an encyclopedic one either, but, either way, whether it has any value here is questionable. SunStar Net 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Classic ~~vanity~~ COI, nn-bio. -- RHaworth 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as WP:COI. Hello32020 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This one seems to be purely advertising. Her voice (there's a soundtrack on the website) is remarkably like Beyonce's, but she really isn't very fit at all so all the refs to her being "ever so gorgeous" etc are a bit random. --SandyDancer 22:08, 14 November 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. W.marsh 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian (title)

Non-notable definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cuñado - Talk 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - referencing the talk page, this article was created due to red-links from other articles. The problm though, is that the other articles imply refer to "guardian" in a generic dictionary term type of usage. -- Whpq 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I have a sense of how this was intended, but the article fails to distinguish what is different about this type of guardian and what sorts of links to it are appropriate. Right now 2/3 of the inbound links are from anime and video game articles using the term in various generic ways. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Even making this a beginning disambiguation page would be difficult, given the multitude of uses of the word.SkierRMH 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete'. This is for Wiktionary. NauticaShad e s 20:42, 15 November 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. W.marsh 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical humor

List of jokes. No attempt to approach the field systematically. Unsure if this topic is worth an article. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete at least in its current form, since we're an encyclopedia rather than a joke book. An article could gainfully be written along the lines of the one about Lawyer jokes, but this ain't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete There could be an article about the subject, describing its history, with examples (Dickens? Shakespeare? Mark Twain? The Bible?) and telling how it is distinct from other types of humor, but a short list of unattributed jokes is not encyclopedic. Edison 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is no point to this page, it is just a collection of jokes about medical people. MattS1991 18:01, 19 November 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. W.marsh 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family Reunion (Rugrats)

Rugrats episodes are generally not notable or encyclopaedic; there is little to say on them other than to provide synopses. If this debate succeeds, I plan to nominate all other articles in the category for deletion, aside from All Growed Up, which is (in my view) notable enough. CNash 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge into List of Rugrats episodes. --- RockMFR 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, only insofar as many other TV programmes have their separate episodes as individual pages. The question, however, remains, is this show notable enough to have it's shows have separte listings?SkierRMH 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Not notable? You are kidding me right? – I beg you to find someone who hasn't heard of the Rugrats! – Definitely requires expansion though, although practically all episodes of a television series are article worthy if they have a potential audience. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable show per above. Also, merging all of the episode synopses into one article would be far too lengthy. --Czj 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep episode articles of television shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment there is a blink-182 song of the same name which is likely as famous. 68.190.212.208

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Streamload

Has somehow managed to survive since June 2005, yet doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB, and if it does, it doesn't assert its notability very well. Seems a little spam-ish. Your thoughts? --Czj 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - spam city. The external link in the first sentence would see to that. Seems a candidate for db-spam under any other circumstance. Bubba hot ep 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like db-spam material. --- RockMFR 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. fits the "db-spam" (advert) criteria quite well.SkierRMH 07:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite to be less ad-like. This is the service Google is copying with GDrive. Streamload was one of the first online file storage services along with XDrive. Notable and innovative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 November 2006.
delete. No reputable refs to claims of fame. NY Times articles are just ads. May be recreated if reputable experts publications that specifically discuss its notability (not just mention in a long list of similars). Mukadderat 16:41, 16 November 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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Winger

There are very few Google hits for this person (under 600 excluding Wikipedia), and none of them are reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited in the article. There are no hits at all on Google News. So: formally unverifiable, neutrality cannot be proven from reliable independent sources, in short: not notable per WP:BIO. Guy 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The guy did animation for Nickelodeon, surely that makes him notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Working for Nickelodeon does not make one notable to the standards Wikipedia requires in its guidelines for such.--Rosicrucian 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Winger is, in my opinion, the best-known furry artist there is. I acknowledge there's a certain subjectivity to that statement, but he's almost inarguably the best-known furry artist among non-furries. In other words, he's one of the few--perhaps even the only--furry artist to "break out" and be known outside the furry community as well as inside. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the trouble is, not even the Nickelodeon claim is verifiable. There isn't much hope of bringing this one up to code, I'm afraid.--Rosicrucian 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines of multiple independent sources. Edison 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonverifiable. Mukadderat 16:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Remove the Nickelodeon part if you so desire, but keep the rest of the article. The guy is living internet legend. Verifiability is overrated. Tchernobog 17:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Verifiability is policy.--Rosicrucian 03:36, 19 November 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. If you feel an article is inaccurate or nonneutral, feel free to edit that article accordingly. If you feel an article's title is inaccurate or nonneutral, feel free to propose to have it renamed. But do not circumvent the normal editorial process by creating compeeting version/s of the same entry. Incidentally, this entry could use a lot of expansion: for ex., that many IDF commanders, including the division commander responsible for the firing the shells, were resolutely against using artillery fire precisely due to the likelihood of these type of incidents, but the Regional Command(?) General Staff/MoD/PM thought otherwise; or operative details, for ex., 12 shells being involved in the incident; or that the death toll is now up to twenty. In other words, no shortage of work, but keep it all in one place, without forking and without employing AfD as an editorial mechanism. El_C 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

NPOV version of Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. The other article is better sourced and neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 November 2006(UTC).

Unequivocally strong KEEP Submitter (User:Burgas00) is a friend and co-POV-pusher of Striver (who created the article Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun as a POV Fork, and which article was already submitted for deletion). Obvious POV pushing and trolling even to submit this page for deletion, and he wouldn't even sign his own POV-pushing name to it. RunedChozo 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That a user would abuse process like this is inexcusable and I urge this be speedy rejected. RunedChozo 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per RC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this article is older than Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun (oddly enough by only nine hours), which was already nominated for deletion. The nomination does not mention this. Would highly recommend a Speedy Keep if at all possible. Also, this appears to be an orphaned and improperly listed AfD.--Rosicrucian 22:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The reason it's older by 9 hours is that after its creation, POV pusher User:Striver created the other one as a POV Fork to try to get around NPOV, inserted blatant propaganda, and then "suggested" a merge as a shoehorn to try to force POV material into the real article. RunedChozo 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've corrected the format to properly reflect the nominator and make sure it's listed appropriately. Hopefully now that people can see the AfD this should be a fairly easy speedy keep.--Rosicrucian 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong and speedy Keep This article is much better-written than that Hamas propaganda POV fork Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. The narrative is more neutral here. Hkelkar 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per WP:SNOW. Notable news event; Wikipedia is not censored. Seems like a bad faith nom. --Czj 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, abstention per [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. As an uninvolved party (with no POV on any Middle East conflicts whatsoever), I find edits such as these to be "canvassing", and an attempt to create a possibly-false sense of concensus. Let some more opinions from those who weren't solicited come in before anyone even dreams of closing this as a speedy- or snowball-keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:56, 14 November 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. W.marsh 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia as an emerging superpower

Article violates WP:NOT (crystal balling), WP:OR, WP:V. Basic premise is not sourced, nor are any of the various statistics. Entire article little more than duplicate material from Russia and its associated articles. Xdamr^talk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that no notable neutral source has been provided for describing Russia as an emerging superpower. As it stands, this article is one person's OR. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Xdamr^talk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This has been deleted before and should be deleted again. --Wildnox 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now. Article was just created and appears to be a valid stub. Similar articles exist for China, India, and Europe. I see no reason not to give it a couple of weeks to be expanded and appropriately sourced. If it isn't, we can reconsider at a later date. Shimeru 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (Copied this from the other AfD that was accidentally listed. Shimeru 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Comment to the first admin who sees this (not directly related to AfD discussion): You may want to speedy-close the erroneous double-nom. All of the comments have been moved here. --Czj 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep as notable and encyclopedic. Add citations and fix the sentence fragments so it reads more like an encyclopedia entry than a brochure. --Czj 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This arcicle is OK. LUCPOL 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. The article title is a thesis. The article is an attempt to justify the thesis.Sethie 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - unfortunately, this looks like original research, since currently things are pretty shitty. However, as appropriately pointed out above, some other arguable superpower candidates have similar articles, so why single out Russia? Let's delete the other ones first. Guinness man 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - in response to some of the others above. Firstly, this article possesses no source while the others possess 100 or so each. Secondly, Russia is not discussed in the media as much as the other nations which have such articles are. I don't think anyone can vote KEEP justifiably unless a notable neutral source is provided which describes Russia as an emerging superpower. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps with less discussion, but not with no discussion [48] [49] [50], although "re-emerging superpower" might be more apropos. And in response to the first objection, this article is a day old, while the others have been here for around a year. It seems to me to be in a very similar state to the original versions of the China and India articles. Why the strident opposition to allowing it some time for expansion and sourcing? If that doesn't happen, by all means, renominate it, but it seems a bit soon to declare that nothing can possibly be done with it, without providing any evidence toward that assertion. And to the above editor, given all of your contributions to India as an emerging superpower, it's a little puzzling to me that you'd want to shoot down this one so quickly. Shimeru 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as OR. Call me back again for more comments if you nominate the others. Dekimasu 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. Tag this article for improvement and give it a chance to unstubify itself. --Dhartung | Talk 14:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Essay. The POV concerns cannot be addressed as the whole concept behind the article is biased. There are two emerging superpowers - India and China. Looked at over a sufficiently long time span Russia is still in reletive decline due to its demographic problems, so this article can never be anything but nationalist special pleading. Hawkestone 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, the long-term trends are not good. As a result I very much doubt that any editor will be able to provide reputable sourcing for the basic premise, which should lead to deletion. The only aspect that presents potential cause for optimism is the 'energy superpower' argument - essentially Russia turning into a petro-state. This may or may not come to pass, but either way, 'energy superpower' is a slipshod journalistic term, it does not equate to 'superpower' proper.

Xdamr^talk 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete — There are other articles of this nature for nation-states such as China and India. However this one is missing references of any kind. (If it was properly substantiated with references, then I would gladly change my vote.) Also since Russia was already considered a superpower prior to their economic collapse, the article title doesn't make sense. The subject should be regarding Russia's potential return to superpower status. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union. Russia was the primary constituent part of the USSR, however a pretty hefty and strategically/ economically important chunk of the former USSR is now independent, outwith Russia's direct control.

Xdamr^talk 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I could see the facts being merged into Russia, but am of the opinion that the rest of the article is original research or a point of view - a "thesis" as someone earlier suggested. --TheOtherBob 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR. Also the term "superpower" becomes obsolete in modern politics. It was good during cold war. Mukadderat 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Mishmash of trivias, facts of low relevancy, exaggerations (population declined /rapidly/ when the Mongols raided). Predicting the future using last century criteria of coal, steel and tanks and omits such petiness as willingness use the available power without bothering with inpractical pseudo-ideals. Pavel Vozenilek 03:15, 19 November 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. W.marsh 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ajay john solomon

Several issues with notability (although claimed, not verifiable), can't find anything on the dude, also autobiographical. In short, hoax? Delete Bubba hot ep 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete good story, bad article. --MECU≈talk 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete reads like a very poorly written vanity piece.SkierRMH 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. Mukadderat 16:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO and lacking reliable sources per WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:16, 18 November 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 transwiki (done). I've left a soft redirect. Proto::type 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voltaire's views on race

This is a set of quotations, thinly larded with original research. Transwiki to Wikisource. Septentrionalis 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Some of these are relevant to his history, but would be too much to merge back into the Voltaire article. Still if we transwiki I think some of these quotes should be placed in the main article.--T. Anthony 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment How can a series of quotes possibly be 'original research'? I strongly oppose deletion for this -- GordonRoss01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The handful of words between the quotes are strongly opinionated and completely unsourced. I also agree with Tonywalton's objection: we have no way of knowing that these quotes are representative of the Essai sur moeurs, much less Voltaire's whole body of work. Septentrionalis 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki, per nominator. OR or not (and while a set of quotes in themselves are not OR the action of selecting them out of context may well be, and may be POV as well) slabs of quotes belong on Wikisource. Tonywalton | Talk 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki, Mukadderat 16:30, 16 November 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. W.marsh 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quickview pro

Appears to be a non-notable software product. Previously PRODed, but tag removed. Hawaiian717 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added more information about it, and since there was no reasoning why it should be removed I removed that tag. And what do you mean by non-notable? It's the primary mediaplayer for DOS users and still being actively developed. Wermlandsdata

The articled doesn't establish that this software is notable. The notability guidelines for software can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If you can add to the article verifiable claims of the software's notability, then great and I'd withdraw the nomination. -- Hawaiian717 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to an article from an online magazine. Other than that i don't know. It's mentioned all over when you ask DOS users how they listen/watch multimedia but there aren't that many magazines that cover DOS anymore. Wermlandsdata

Merge with QuickView I think both should be combined to produce a weak article. --MECU≈talk 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- QuickView looks like a file viewer for Windows, while Quickview Pro is a media player for DOS. Since they're different programs, I don't think it makes sense to merge them. -- Hawaiian717 06:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I agree with Hawaiian717 on that part, QuickView relates to a much simpler program that isn't actively developed anymore. Wermlandsdata
    - Then merge that with this -- 2 articles for 2 little-known products is 2 many. I can be persuaded to "vote" [AFDisnotavote] delete both -- Simon Cursitor 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Two little known? I'll agree that I've never heard of the Windows program before, but QuickView (Real and Pro) isn't a small unknown program. how many of you have actually used DOS for playing movies and sounds? QuickView is the biggest in that market. And, dosamp can have an article, but searching after that on Google turns up around 3.8 times more hits. I'll guess there are a myriad of programs described on wikipedia that could be removed if you start counting. I just wanted to add mroe information about qv since I saw it in a comparision list here. IMHO everything that's in one of those lists should have a seperate article. Wermlandsdata
Delete. No real content, WP is not Freshmeat. The dosamp is deletable as well. Pavel Vozenilek 03:24, 19 November 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. W.marsh 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of placental mammals

This page, as its title suggests, was apparently meant to be a complete list of all mammalian species, except for the marsupials and monotremes. That's crazy! The page is already at 138KB, and isn't even half complete --- probably more like three or four percent complete. The solution is to split it up into one article on Placental mammals in general, and numerous articles on Felis, Canis, and so on. This has been done; probably it had already been done before the List of placental mammals was created. What's next, a List of plants? List of living people? Quuxplusone 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - the list is unwieldy. If it were a list of non-placental mammals, I'd understand. - Richardcavell 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
keep - Very helpful list, sorted in a manner that a category cant. It's about 75% complete, and it's still being worked on. There is a companion list for marsupials and monotremes. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename and retool. Instead of a list of all placental mammals have it be a list of genuses among placentals. This will be more manageable.--T. Anthony 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- What purpose does that serve? A very different one that a complete list of species. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep/Rename and modify per Anthony. JoshuaZ 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Richardcavell. This is rather like having a List of people who did not die from breast cancer as a companion to List of people who died from breast cancer. Tonywalton | Talk 10:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep somewhere because this shows off the advantages of a list well; redlinks showing what needs to be done and hierarchical sorting. I don't think 'length' is a sufficient reason to delete something like this. Other possibilities are to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace (there must be some WikiProject that would find the list useful) or to transwiki it to WikiSpecies if they want it. --ais523 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikiproject Mammals will take it, if it must be moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, useful list. The length is fine. Species are much more significant than the genus level, as genera are defined arbitrarily. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The list is not comparable to List of living people, as (IMHO) every species on the list is notable, and can have a valid wikipedia article (or at least a redirect). It is comparable to List of people by name. If the list turns out to be unwieldy (and it probably will), it may be more useful if it was split by order or superorder. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, useful list, manageable length. jimfbleak 12:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - A long but useful list JoJan 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This organized listing is encyclopedic in the extreme. And the redlinked entries will spur people on to write article on the species not yet having an article such as the "Screaming Hairy Armadillos," which would be a great name for a rock band. Edison 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is one of the best done and most useful lists on all of Wikipedia. Add one of Placental Mammal, also, if there isn't one. From an evolutionary biology and wildlife perspective this is very valuable. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should include more lists of this nature that divide organisms strictly along familiar evolutionary lines, excellent for the layman and useful for the specialist. KP Botany 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep ditto to JoJan & others - MPF 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Not all lists are useful, but this one is, and manageably so. RFerreira 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I just want to remind all the keepers that this list is 141 kilobytes, and prints to 53 pages of A4. I question who will be able to manage it. As research continues to shuffle the taxonomy of species, will all those who edit the mammal articles remember to update this list as well? If the Cross River Gorilla subspecies were to be reclassified as a new species, as some researchers would have it, then one would need to update the articles Cross River Gorilla, Western Gorilla, Western Lowland Gorilla, and Gorilla - all of which are linked to each other. Then one would have to remember to update List of placental mammals (which is orphaned from all the gorilla articles). - Richardcavell 12:05, 19 November 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, notability demonstrated after referencing. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Lund

Appears to be an article about a TV news anchor for a local Los Angeles news channel. Not sure if this meets notability standards or not. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why did this go to AfD within only a few minutes of this article's creation [51] and not even prodded? --Oakshade 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete not notable. --MECU≈talk 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Legendary ABC affiliate achorperson in Los Angeles and Southern California. Was opposite Jerry Dunphy for much of her career. Winner of numerous awards including at least one Emmy - [52] and a Genesis Award - [53] . Here's a whole bunch of Los Angeles Times articles about her - free registration is required, but you can see in the free previews that she's the primary subject of these stories [54][55][56][57]. A Daily Variety article about her retiring here [58]. And according to some sources, she was the inspiration for Christina Applegate's character in Anchorman [59]. --Oakshade 05:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Update some of the above refs have been inserted into the article, plus further expansion. --Oakshade 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Sources found by Oakshade indicate sufficient notability. Sandstein 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The listing of television personalities in Los Angeles is incomplete as is, e.g., Stan Chambers of KTLA who was an early live on-air broadcaster when everything was in black and white.T.E. Goodwin 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stan Chambers does have an article. It could use some Wikifying. --Oakshade 03:01, 18 November 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 for the 2nd time in the last week. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Gallego

Non-notable. Recommend Speedy Delete, although I think it fails criteria A7, as he does assert notability.Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Claiming to be the greatest kid in the universe can't be taken seriously enough to protect the article from a speedy. I'm going to post the speedy tag.GringoInChile 00:13, 15 November 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 unsourced. Arguments that hold no water in XfD discussions: 1. "It has a huge fanbase." 2. "It ran for X episodes/years/seasons." 3. "It is somehow linked to something that is notable." 4. "We have a project on it." I think we had them all here. Arguments that hold water in XfD discussions: 1. "Here is a news article that prominently features the topic of this article." I don't see any of them here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonus Stage

The article was undeleted by W.marsh (talk • contribs) as a contested prod. The article does not assert the notability of the subject per WP:WEB anywhere. I suggest deleting the article unless and until the notability is proven, not just asserted by blatant assertion on the talk page. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn per nom, and recreate as redirect to Bonus stage. Confusing Manifestation 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this is a notable webtoon, as the last episode was sold for a dollar and is on KeenTOONs, a notable website. The fansub being done in Japanese is also another reason why it's notable. ChunkyKong12345 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete non notable, not effort to prove notability; lots of Pokemon arguments on the talk page; but, no real proof as to why it should be kept. --Simonkoldyk 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete non notable, Mukadderat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep There are nearly 90 episodes, and daily/weekly awards whenever it's been submitted to Newgrounds. The former alone is no small feat. --Frankenroc 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. It's one of the longest-running webtoons out there, with a very large fanbase. It even had its own wiki at one point. How is that not notable?~Shippinator Mandy ^{(For best results, use twice daily.)}

Keep If it's not notable, how did it get such a cult fanbase? If anything, you should mve it to Matt Wilson's Bonus Stage, to keep it less ambiguous. --BSCozza^{The something and only...}

If it's that notable it should be asserted in the article. There's no reliable third party coverage, the See also's are redlinks, etc. If you are correct about the subject's notability, this article still falls in the category:Subject is notable but the article doesn't make that clear. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should make it clear, then. ~Shippinator Mandy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.155.26.39 (talk • contribs).

Strong Delete - I am sick and tired of seeing these Keentoons articles be recreated. IT FAILS WP:WEB, IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. Some large fanbase does not change the fact that Bonus Stage isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Does Legendary Frog have an article? No. Why? Because even though he has this huge fanbase, it is not enough for an article on Wikipedia. How about Knox? He gets at least 3 views on his website per second. It changes nothing. WP:WEB specifically states that for such a thing to have Wikipedia notability, it has to have media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. Bonus Stage has no such thing. Legendary Frog has no such thing. Knox has no such thing. Space Tree has no such thing. Bonus Stage is simply cruft on Wikipedia and is not notable enough. --FireV 02:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for a month. I want to see if Bonus Stage can be shown to be a verifiable site, and I want to allow the editors of this article some time to find sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per FireV. Dionyseus 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:WEB, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is a WP:WEBA Bonus Stage is a part of it. It's simple as that. Bonus Stage should have NEVER been deleted! Joelon 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just because the article is part of a Wiki project dosen't mean it is saved from deletion. --Simonkoldyk 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment WP:WEBA is not a policy, so your statement holds no water, Joelon. --FireV 18:02, 19 November 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 Supertask —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 01:40Z

[edit] Ping-pong ball conundrum

Article is an unreferenced duplicate of a section of an identical paradox called the Ross-Littlewood Paradox. The only difference between the two is that the Ross-Littlewood sub-article uses marbles, while the Ping-pong ball article uses ping pong balls. Therefore the Ping-pong ball article can be deleted as duplicate material, with a redirect to the Ross-Littlewood Paradox. Dugwiki 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Supertask#Ross-Littlewood_Paradox. They both contain very few hits, bit the Ross-Littlewood one has more than the ping pong one. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Supertask says the two problems are same with ping pong are marbles. why two articles??? Audiobooks 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect - there's nothing useful in the ping-pong ball article. Remove the hyperlink from the Ping-pong ball conundrum reference in the Supertask article. - Richardcavell 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. No evidence of notability of this articular term. Mukadderat 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd recommend using a redirect, since there are currently articles that link to the Ping Pong ball article. Deleting with no redirect would leave those other articles red-linked. Also, it's possible that some unreferenced texts do indeed refer to the paradox using "ping pong balls", so readers who type that in should be redirected to the Ross-Littlewood_Paradox description. Dugwiki 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Richardcavell, with whose observation that there's nothing useful to merge I concur, and per Ultra, in view of whose observation that the marble formulation is (ostensibly) not profoundly less common as an alternative title to Balls and vase problem than the Ross-Littlewood one I can't imagine redirection to be inappropriate even as I would, were I in accord with Mukadderat's supposition as to notability, counsel deletion as against redirection, notwithstanding that certain redlinks might be created (I've never understood us to avoid deleting redirects or prospective redirects qua articles simply because we might thereby oblige ourselves to partake of a bit of housekeeping [here, to-wit, removing the quasi-self-referential link from Balls and vase problem and pointing the link at Thought experiment to the instant article to Supertask or Balls and vase problem instead; I've been bold and made such changes). Joe 05:48, 19 November 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. W.marsh 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick McSharry

The article is self-written and thus a conflict of interest. Futhermore, there doesn't appear to be anything in the article that would meet WP:PROF although author makes a stronger claim in the Talk page. The article was first {{userfied}} but the author reposted it. Delete as vanity. GringoInChile 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vanity, non-notable, and WP:PROF failure. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless totally rewritten.bunix 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also the claim of the author on the talk page [60] to be a professor at Oxford university ("...being a professor in the University of Oxford,...") doesn't seem to be supported by the Oxford staff pages [61] [62] or his personal page there [63]. Optimale ^Gu 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by "reliable, third-party published sources" as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:10, 17 November 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. W.marsh 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bluff City Miracle

I think this article may have notability problems: making hail mary passes isn't that unusual. Also, WP:NOT a newspaper. Wasn't this speedied or on AfD before, maybe under another name, like Memphis Miracle? Article prodded twice. Tubezone 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete very non-notable, verifiability issues, 4 independent hits. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, simply not all that notable. While certainly low percentage, I'm sure you can dig up hundreds of games decided in this fashion; and certainly more critical games. A simple search turns up two blog mentions of "Bluff City Miracle" and of course the hits on youtube - not exactly a popular name for the game. Kuru ^talk 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete no notability of any sort. Nuttah68 17:30, 15 November 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-19 21:26Z

[edit] RuneScape locations

Keep - I personally think this page comes in handy for players who arent too sure about certain locations in Gielnor. 1 thing i do think that should happen is that it should be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ MeXsTa (talk • contribs) .

It isn't meant just for players. But a non-player reader would still be interested in what the game world looks like. I've never really got into Lord of the Rings, but I still find the Middle-earth article fascinating. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article helps people learn more about the game, and shows them may aspects of gameplay. Pr0grammer1 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Rewrite almost all the information is only useful to game players, makeing it fancruft. There is so much that the article would be below "stub" grade if it were removed. It can't stay this way, so remove it or change it. Exarion 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep As I feel this article gives even non-players useful information about the nature and feel of the game. It does not only benefit players. Mamyles 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. On the very first edit in 2004, the edit summary was: "new article, to condense articles about locations in runescape". I think it still serves this purpose -- it prevents the cruft from happening, whilst providing information on a well-known and notable game. I think it's reasonable and notable enough to have one article of its own. (By the way, I've never played RuneScape and barely even know what it's about; this is just how I see things.) --Czj 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - fictional location articles are encyclopedic; see Category:Fantasy worlds, Category:Fictional locations, subcategories and especially Middle-earth: a former front page featured article. If it seems a little overdetailed, water it down and clean it up. Get rid of stuff saying things like 'ooh its really good to cut wood here', and keep the geography. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep bad nomination reason (fancruft should not be used to explain a nomination), and since these locations are hardly any different from any of the other games with discreet locations described, I'm not going to vote delete anyway. Mister.Manticore 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but do a major rewrite, as the article is badly organized and confusing. I admit, there's a lot of fancruft, but this article is important in explaining Gielnor in terms of locations and landscape. Instead of deleting, why not help with a rewrite? I just started working on one in my ~~Talk Page~~. Pyrospirit 01:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not talk page; it's found at this link now. I'd appreciate any help with this. Pyrospirit 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and close Close this AfD and let them work on a rewrite. MartinDK 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per everyone else, surprised this hasn't been closed. --Wizardman 16:53, 19 November 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 after referencing, notability demonstrated by sources. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Kibiwott

So he won a Dutch road race twice. Nothing indicates that this sportsperson meets WP:BIO guidelines, though. Punkmorten 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article expanded, should be notible enough right now. SportsAddicted | discuss 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep thanks to User:SportsAddicted's edit. Meets the "multiple non-trivial external published references" part of WP:BIO now. Demiurge 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mukadderat 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree: Keep Dsp13 00:02, 17 November 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Gaymer Pride Flag

[edit] Koji Yokogawa

[edit] IMediaMatrix

[edit] Vasiliu Lucilius

[edit] GRWF

[edit] List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by age (2nd nomination)

[edit] Lauchlord

[edit] Beacon House Group

[edit] Tankball

[edit] Oxford Hayek Society

[edit] Gamera 4: Truth

[edit] The New Way

[edit] Shakespeare's Influence on the English Language

[edit] The Proportional Pirate Law

[edit] Victor Sadauskas

[edit] HLD clan

[edit] Gustav Schwarzenegger

[edit] Technopathogenology

[edit] Daniel Orlowski

[edit] List of best-selling singles in Japan

[edit] Controversial activities of the Shiv Sena

[edit] Magic: The Gathering deck types

[edit] Mister J

[edit] Vengeance 77

[edit] The Escapist (magazine)

[edit] Waterman (flash)

[edit] Control deck

[edit] Bob Hernandez

[edit] Joe's Shanghai

[edit] List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes

[edit] Don't Save Karyn

[edit] Weapons of Halo 2

[edit] Cho Chang

[edit] Baka Subculture

[edit] Natural responsibility

[edit] Car dealer scams

[edit] R-mean

[edit] E.B. Hughes

[edit] Mats Linder

[edit] MacHOME

[edit] Nimroid

[edit] Halo Demo for Mac

[edit] ZVOX Audio

[edit] Elmeda

[edit] Robert Obara

[edit] Space Tree

[edit] Nicholas Cretan

[edit] XDebug

[edit] Kimberly Mattis

[edit] Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

[edit] Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi

[edit] Fasttranslator

[edit] George W. Bush cottaging controversy

[edit] Jayla Rubinelli

[edit] Thamesbank

[edit] Gateway to the Sphinx

[edit] Tony Page (Ruamrudee International School)

[edit] Alicia Pan

[edit] Malik Hospital

[edit] Christopher Irons

[edit] Geek rock

[edit] SATEK

[edit] Patrick McCabe (rugby player)

[edit] DeMorgan's Theory

[edit] Dice Wars

[edit] Paddy Reilly (NUIG)

[edit] Moorkanade

[edit] A New Ascension

[edit] Defendant_(Rock_Band)

[edit] Charles Borromeo (Indian athlete)

[edit] Angels of Dunkirk

[edit] Elsie Ivancich Dunin

[edit] Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, Bloc Québécois Shadow Cabinet, New Democratic Party Shadow Cabinet

[edit] Viola Thomas-Hughes

[edit] Aang Serian Drum

[edit] Action Heroes

[edit] Anuragam