Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.134.219.52 (talk) at 12:50, 1 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 31 September 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result of the debate was speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van

Vanity nonsense FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The daily reel

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Summers Potterton III

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

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

The result was MERGE into Wheel of Fortune. Herostratus 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune set evolution

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

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


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

Marine and Terra Cave

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

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

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

Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune

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

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

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

List of Barney & Friends stage shows

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

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

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

CloudNine Pajamas

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loco Driver

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

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

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

Ashley Brehaut

Incomplete AFD nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:74.132.122.141. Procedural nomination, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Linda Kelliher Samets

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:68.142.33.1. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing WP:BIO for lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles about subject, no national awards, no evidence of substantial contributions in her field. Fails WP:V for lacking credible substantive sources to verify article. Only 1060 general Google hits for "Linda Kelliher Samets", which boils down to 30 distinct Ghits, which suggests non-notability. I note the hits are all for WP mirrors or similar user-entered listings, suggesting relentless self-promotion. Tychocat 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no establishing of actual notability, yet--ZayZayEM 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Thoughts

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

  • Delete per nom. Alexa says the alleged "popular" website isn't in their top 100,000, and the actual traffic is somewhere lower than five millionth. Okay... that aside, fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about it, no national awards, and I don't count the 14 distinct Ghits that the abovementioned 36 Ghits boil down to. When the counting gets that low, it's easy to see that most of the hits are from WP mirrors, and shout-outs from fellow bloggers. Tychocat 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, non notable website--ZayZayEM 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Hitter

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Wikipediatrix. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yatfan style

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawat Dii Kaph

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:58.69.212.219. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawat Dii Khap

Incomplete nom found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:58.69.212.219. Procedural nom, so no vote from me. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lottoxp

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect. Xoloz 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Knights

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

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

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

Jamie Patricof

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

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

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

Nordboard

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krosork

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

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

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

Sliced Bread No. 2

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Barney & Friends

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOZ corporation

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Deveraux

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

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

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

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

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

Winter Olympics 2026

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

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

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

CozyBoots.com

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

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

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

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

Funkitron, Inc.

See prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkitron

Article's writing style follows convention found in other companies in space: Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_GamesDave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

PR: [10] [11]

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

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

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

The result was No consensus Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwapAce.com

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

New Note

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

Awards and Accolades

  • On the 20th of March 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded a grant by the Australian Federal Government (a COMET grant through AusIndustry). [1]
  • In August of 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded the prestigious title of being one of the "Top 10 Cool Companies" by Australian Anthill magazine. [2]
  • In November 2005, SwapAce.com was placed as a finalist in the Secrets of Australian IT Innovation Competition. [3]
  • In July of 2006, SwapAce.com was recognised as part of an elite group of successful e-entrepreneurs by MyBusiness magazine.[4]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Wasy

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

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

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

Loser-fucker

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

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

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

DJ SAY-G

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


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

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

" 260 Google"

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

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

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

"User Name"

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

" Thus I smell an advertisement attempt"

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

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

NO NEED TO DELETE !!!


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

  • Delete per nom. The bottom line here is that there's no proof anywhere that we're being informed about a notable individual as against someone who'd like to be notable. It may not be entirely an ad, but it's not the biography of a notable individual, either, and that's what trumps all. BigHaz 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - oh, and for the record a randomly-selected sample of the German sources don't add anything much to what we're dealing with here, so we don't seem to be dealing with someone astronomically famous in the non-Aglophone world but totally unknown within it (just in case anyone's worried). BigHaz 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed wondering about that, but the awful Google translation of a couple pages suggested the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh, Google translations. You've got my sympathy on that one, you really do. BigHaz 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPickIt

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

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

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

The Dark Enforcer

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

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

  • Delete - Not notable enough for an article. A brief mention in the main article is all that is needed imo. Wickethewok 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TV title page is large enough that it does not warrant the inclusion of this article, as this article can stand alone. notable enough subject.--ZayZayEM 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not only a character on the TV show, but also a villian in Feedback's comic.--Unopeneddoor 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The character stands out from the others because he was the only one who, even after being eliminated, remained on the series. He is probably going to be featured in Feedback's comic book, and therefore, he is noteable. Also, Steel Chambers' created Iron Enforcer, but Stan Lee helped to come up with the idea off Dark Enforcer...therefore, he is a character in the Marvel Comics Universe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colorblinddj (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The character is not part of the Marvel Universe. If the character even appears in the Feedback comic, something that's far from a settled question and thus irrelevant to the character's notability, he would be part of the Dark Horse universe. Otto4711 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Wickethewok.-Kmaguir1 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He was featured in both trailers of the superheroes, therefore it shows he is a main character.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.150.206 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Assuming he gets mentioned in the TV show and Feedback's comic he is probably notable. Otherwise, I'm not certain that's the case.PaleAqua 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, even probably noteworthy outside of the show. Regardless, reality contestants? Absolutely worth having articles, all of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Hate to be a tool and down on someone else's article, but this person is not notible enough for an article. Being on a reality show, especially Who Wants to be a Superhero? does not yield the notibility for an article. Further, he is not a comics villain. The user(s) who made his article simply added the SHB incorrectly. Note that he's classified as a DC comics character. This is likely an error based on the similarity between the villain color and DC's color. (Don't get me started on how wrong that similarity is.) He was in the fake—I say, FAKE!—trailers because they didn't have anyone else to use. Viewers will note the other "villains" "problems" were "Chickman-man" (a giant baby chick) a fake asteroid and several pieces of footage ripped from other sci fi originals. These weren't perspective trailers for their possible sci fi films by any means. Finally, he appeared in his non-villainous costume at the end to congratulate Feedback. Feedback himself doesn't consider him his enemy. Bottomline, all we need is one article for the winner, who is and will be notible. That's not POV, either. These characters aren't even described in the reality show article. Honestly...I hate to say it, but if I've seen fancruft, this is it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-there is talk online that he is gonna be in the movie, so keep it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.143.85 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: "Talk online"? Where? A forum. Bah to that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest Feedback has his own page, and all the rest get one "Who Want to be a Superhero? Characters" page. Ace ofspade 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Steel Chamber's MySpace has made hints about the movie.
MySpace a credible source? DrWho42 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Superhero?. Someone will just recreate it if you delete it. But yeah, it's not even slightly noteworthy, and can all be summarised in the main article in a line or two. At the moment this is just a plot summary for a reality TV show. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disorders of Sex Development

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7.--Andeh 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Lunn

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

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

The result was Merge into Duke Nukem 3D. BaseballBaby 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem 3D Total Conversions

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

Except that it isn't verifiable and including that much info in the main article on it would be poor balance anyway. Recury 14:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

SATS is fully accredited by South African government.

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

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

Redefined

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

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

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

Iowa Intersection

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

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

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

The Stereotypes

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

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

The cleanup is an improvement but doesn't address the notability concerns. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Shir Appeal

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

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

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

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

New Concept Chinese

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

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

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

CMU Originals

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

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

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

Nightshade (ensemble)

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

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

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

Anders Kravis

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

Also nominated under this AfD:

Not the above is now a redirect to the Anders Kravis page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Cardinal Sinners

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

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

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

Vandy Taal

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

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

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

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

Onoscatopoeia

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Margo

A7, Unremarkable person/vanity page - Subject is little more than a political candidate. Somnabot 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that this is set up as a vanity page and should be completely rewritten without such bias; however, i am not convinced that he doesn't "deserve" a wikipedia entry given his appointments and political clout.Desert boy 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dislike pages created because someone is a candidate, because (until they win) they're usually of minor interest and frequently they become targets of people with an agenda. I think it's best for the project to delete such pages in general, and this one in particular. Friday (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Tones

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than performing 1-3 concerts on their own campus per semester. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted Thryduulf 08:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chattertocks

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than a "high standard of musical excellence." savidan(talk) (e@) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky World of Erotic Cartoons

This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What bearing does this assertion have on the site's notability per WP:WEB? As far as I know, we do not judge our articles based on the merits of the subject, but on its notability. Sandstein 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, I'm sure, but that still isn't a notability criterium per WP:WEB - and do you happen to have any reliable sources for your assertions? Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think WWOEC has some notability in certain circles. Absolutely not mine. Not that there's anything wrong with it (actually some parts of WWOEC I think are actually pretty wrong - but its still a bit notable).--ZayZayEM 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everything has "some notability in certain circles", if the circles are sufficiently narrow. We're looking for notability per WP:WEB, however, backed up by reliable sources and not by unsourced assertions. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD should be closed already. I would close it myself as "no consensus", but I have vested interest in the AfD myself, as a fan of WWOEC's art (well, some of it). JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose relisting it, as there has been little policy-based discussion so far. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP | Talk 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is although it may seem notable, Wikipedia articles require sources to validate those claims. If you found some reliable sources that establish notability for this site from the google hits you are talking about, please add them. Again, I would be happy to change my opinion if you do that. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well Google bases its hits ranking off the number of webpages that link to the site which is why Google is often used as a yardstick of sorts to determine Notability. Like I said the sheer number of those hits and the number of participating artists is reason enough for me. Like I said though it's just my opinion. I'll see what I can't do to find some other legit sources to cite to back it up some more. NeoFreak 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy (a cappella group)

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claims to notability (other than their name) are competing in (but not winning) the ICCA and the dubious and unreferenced claim that they are the only group that performs original material. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The claim, more accurately, is that they perform only original material, i.e. they write everything they perform. This is very different claim from the one you state, Savidan. Please read the article carefully before trying to make a decision, guys.)

  • Abstaining since as an alumnus I am quite biased, but at least verifying the claim of being the only collegiate group performing all-original a cappella music. See below. (Not a registered Wikipedia user) 19:18, 8 September 2006 UTC

The people responding are experts who would know the state of the a cappella world. They are the president of the Contempory A Cappella Society of America, the founder of Mainely A Cappella, and the executive director of the ICCA competition respectively: 

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:16:04 -0700
From: Deke Sharon <deke@totalvocal.com>
To: Don Gooding <don@a-cappella.com>
Cc: Amanda Grish <agrish@varsityvocals.com>, Michael Barrientos <mbarrien@OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Any college a cappella groups that perform all-original music?

Mike,

Other than Stanford Fleet Street's recent album of all original music (which
I think was a one-time project, not a permanent direction), I know of
nothing in your all-original league. I think you're safe calling yourselves
the first and only all-original collegiate a cappella group. Congrats!

On Sep 8, 2006, at 6:08 AM, Don Gooding wrote:

> Hi Mike-
>
> I concur with Amanda - I don't know of any others. But Deke would
> indeed be the guy who'd know, as he's the biggest promoter of contemporary
> a cappella groups doing originals.
>
> At 12:24 AM 9/8/2006, Amanda Grish wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > There are none that I know of personally. Have you talked to Don Gooding or
> > Deke Sharon? They would be your best resource. Don Gooding is "friends" with
> > many a cappella groups on My Space, so he might have a more recent idea.
> > Don?
> >
> > Good luck Mike. Hope we'll be hearing from Noteworthy this year!
> >
> > Amanda
> >
> > On 9/7/06 6:21 PM, "Michael Barrientos" <mbarrien@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm an alumnus of the UC Berkeley a cappella group Noteworthy.
> > > <http://ucchoral.berkeley.edu/ucchoral/nworthy>. The group is trying to
> > > check if the claim is true that they are currently the only a college a
> > > cappella group that performs only original music without any covers. I
> > > figured BOCA would have the best chance of knowing of any other college
> > > groups that exist that do not perform covers of songs.
> > >
> > > To the best of your knowledge, is there any other collegiate group that
> > > you have run into that is performing only their own original music, past
> > > or present? If you cannot answer this question, do you know of other
> > > resources who would know if this is true or not?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > --
> > > Mike Barrientos - mbarrien@cal.berkeley.edu
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________
> > Amanda Grish
> > Varsity Vocals
> > ICCA Executive Director
> > ICHSA Executive Director


I might also argue in this case that Noteworthy may satisfy the following guidelines of WP:MUSIC:

  1. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (To date, Noteworthy has written and performed 32 original songs. Whether a cappella counts as a notable genre is up for someone to argue.)
  2. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Noteworthy came in 3rd in their competition, and not every group even makes it into the ICCA competition. Whether the ICCA quarter finals qualify as a major music competition is up for someone to argue.)

Thank you for going out of your way to attempt to verify the "all-original" claim. However, private email correspondences do not meet the verifiability standards of Wikipedia. As for the composing songs, that criteria is in the "other" category, i.e. not a criteria for a musical group persay.

The claim about about reaching the "ICCA quarter finals" is not contained in the article (or sourced online as far as I can tell). I would argue that this does not meet that requirement anyway, as the ICCA contains many, many categories of awards, and 8 different groups would reach quarterfinals in each. I don't think that is sufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What falls under the "other" category? Some may argue that a cappella falls "outside of mass media traditions".

If a local newspaper or school newspaper were to make a mention of the all-original claim (I'd have to research, but I'm sure any article on Noteworthy would have mentioned this), would that qualify for verifiability? Once sourced properly, would the only all-original collegiate group be enough to make the group "Noteworthy" enough? (pun fully intended)

As for sourcing the quarter finals thing (which I'll put in the main article if it's kept): http://www.varsityvocals.com/icca/results.shtml - 2006 quarter finals results, West Region, University of Oregon If quarter finals aren't enough.... I guess they'll just have to make it further in this year's ICCAs. :-) (The same guy as before) 12.191.193.147 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, info already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Company (Yale University)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than its alleged "integration of top-notch musicianship and between-songs sketch comedy." savidan(talk) (e@) 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have deleted this article under the WP:CSD criterion A7. Regards —Encephalon 10:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Transit (singing group)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than some low-profile concerts in their hometown. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, infor already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Company (Swarthmore College)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability beyond their own campus. First nomination was not decided on notability, but was the result of a namespace dispute with other groups of the same name. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Gargoyles

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside of their campus, except for some alleged low-key tours to other colleges. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Entry I feel this is a valid entry: 1. I have seen many other entries for college a cappella groups that have developed into useful, well-written entries and I see no reason why the Gargoyles entry will not follow suite. 2. The Gargoyles are an a cappella group at Oxford University, one of the top academic institutions in the world, and I would argue that many outside of the Oxford community are indeed concerned with organizations formed within the context of such an important institution. 3. Merely listing the Gargoyles under the list of collegiate a cappella groups would not allow for much background information to be included such as the group's musical style, history, and other general facts. --68.193.181.153 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Entry I agree that this is a valid entry fitting many of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in its own right. This UK-based group has undertaken two substantial tours to the US, when it visited several major universities, and during one of which it performed on national television (NBC Today programme). It was the first jazz a cappella group formed at Oxford University, and one of the first of its kind in the UK as a whole. As such it has been at the forefront of UK collegiate a cappella, both at home and abroad. Furthermore, in the UK the Gargoyles have appeared on local television and radio on many occasions, and been reviewed in the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.142 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 September 2006
  • Comment: If what you say is true, you really need to cite sources either here or in the article. The problems is that all articles are required to have "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy, and this article does not have any. Thanks. --Satori Son 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not assert sufficient notability, and its contents are not verified by third-party sources. Research on my part failed to locate any reputable sources, and thus far none have been produced here. I will revise my opinion if and when that occurs, otherwise deletion is warranted. --Satori Son 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Note that unlike BlueValour says, this would actually discourage recreation more than removal of the article. Mangojuicetalk 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testostertones

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside of their campus except for generic low-profile touring. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I find the nominator's and User:Satori Son's comments compelling. This AFD is hereby closed and the associated page deleted. Regards —Encephalon 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty's Dish

About a not-notable animated television pilot. "Even though the pilot tested highly with focus groups it was not picked up as a regular series." Originally PRODDED. Prod removed without comment by User:Lesserredpanda. <200 Google hits, not all about subject. Most are about, well cat food, Nancy Reagan and Kitty Kelly.  :) Dlohcierekim 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the cockamamie BS listed on this site and you want to remove a real animated short created by Disney? One that exists on imdb and links to actors, writers and directors on this very site? Whatever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.244.66 (talk • contribs)  :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I nominated for AfD an article about a not notable pilot that was never picked up by anyone. :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masthope

Article reads like a travel guide, and Wikipedia articles are not travel guides. Kyra 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Information without Malice

This Masthope page contains information about a community within the geographic boundries of Lackawaxen Township and is relevent to information about Lackawaxen which was not included in the original web site article. It adds knowledge about the geographic features and amenities of Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania.

Ski Big Bear is important to the economy and tourism of the region. Furthermore the article adds other relevant information about the region not discussed in the original article such as the Lincoln flag at Milford. It has value as an addition to the original article not considered by the original author. It does not in any way detract from the original article. It adds to the wealth of information. It is not written as an ad for Masthope. If need be the Masthope article can be re-written in order to bring it more in line with the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Oil Sam (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in Comic Sans because I Snake Oil Sam like Comic Sans and like to publish in Comic Sans. I did not understand that it was a sin among the elite of Wikipedia to work in any other than the approved format. Please forgive me for my transgressions. I guess that I am just not up to speed within the cult of Wikipedia.

As far as putting information into the original article I thought that it was better to link to a separate article that I wrote rather than mess with the hard work of someone else. But what do I know I am new around here. Like I said before I can write it to fit your agenda if that would make a difference. Obviously I still have a lot to learn. Snake Oil Sam :-(

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant.com

-- - GIen 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I was going to speedy this however thought I would get some feedback first (so speedy tagged instead of deleting however creator has removed the tags twice - and no doubt would remove a prod). So here we are. No real notability shown in article, in fact it reads like a commercial. Look forward to others feedback - GIen 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to delete tags. I was still editing the article and they must have gotten deleted when I pasted revised copies from my Word document. It is my first article and I'm still not exactly sure how this all works.

How can I make it sound less like a commercial? I am just explaining how the site and company works.

[user:Jennifercifuentes]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClubFBC

Non-notable church youth group. --Haakon 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha in the Boardroom

Non-notable self-published book, seemingly based on a non-notable blog. The advert for the book linked on the page as a source doesn't even have a picture of the book, it has a mock-up of sorts. 'Delete. Mak (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP this is a notable award winning book as seen in MANY business magazines, Television, newspapers written by two award winning business coaches... the book is available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book sellers. This entry is exactly what wikipedia is all about?? Closermac 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Closermac[reply]
  • Comment I have just removed comments by fan and GmcGath for reasons of slander and libel and obvious bigotry. attacks based upon personal religious beliefs do not belong here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.7.221 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment They have been restored. Under no circumstances do you ever remove another person's comments. To actually change someone else's comments (as you did here) is the height of dishonesty. Fan-1967 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to mention the dishonesty of removing my comment (which has been restored) and making false claims about the deleted comment. To put it bluntly, this sock puppet is resorting to smear tactics. GMcGath 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I may not know all the proper techniques of wiki but you must be joking to think buddha in the boardroom by two award winning authors and a NY Times Best Selling author T. Harv Eker non-notable? You obviously don't know the business books. Just because I don't know albert camus doesn't mean I would delete his entry. Some of your personal comments show this is an obvious attack based on religious belief. This is no place for your racism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have the greatest admiration for Buddhists and their faith. I also know that honesty is a guiding principle of that belief, which the editor in question clearly does not demonstrate. I thought my meaning was quite clear. Fan-1967 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the award that this book/the authors have received is from a fairly non-notable body, as far as I can tell, and even the ad/article doesn't claim that Eker was involved in writing the book, he just has some sort of hand in selling/marketing it. To accuse Fan of racism is just ridiculous. Please stop the sockpuppetry and trolling. Mak (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the author may be notable, it is arguable whether every single pieces of his work is notable by association. If the author's book 'Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth' was listed in AfD, I am certain it would fly past as a speedy keep. This one appears to be a mullet. Ohconfucius 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We seem to be losing focus here. If a heretofore undiscovered book by Buddha himself were presented as an advertising blurb as this one is, the article would have to be modified or deleted. Conversely, if the promoter of the book and article hadn't used obvious advertising, vanity links and slanderous attacks, no one would care nearly as much. GMcGath 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the person who wrote the article keeps adding Keith MacConnell to the Nashua article, I'm guessing it is. Mak (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nashua's not a very big town. There could be two people by that name there, but it's not that common a name. Fan-1967 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Such an Irish name not common in a New England Mill Town?? You must be joking?? In the larger Eastern-Seaboard metropolitan areas, Irish Americans number over 44 million, making them the second largest ethnic group in the country. The Clan MacConnell or McConnell being among the largest of them..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)
  • It's totally irrelevant to the merits of deleting the article, but just to close off the argument, there is only one MacConnell in the Nashua phone book, and it's not a Keith or K. GMcGath 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the awards shows to be a "Book of the Year" by Writer's Digest Other press associations are Fast Company (magazine), Business 2.0 Magazine, Success etc.. I also noticed that the paper mentioned above Telegraph of Nashua has a review and schedule of author appearances at Barnes and Noble, Borders Group and other Book Sellers and Hippo Press has several entries.

Doesn't appear to get more legit than this? I wonder if the reason for deletion is not the notabilty issue?? Appears to be motivated by character assasination or religious belief as this seems to have taken a nasty turn with personal insults. Based upon notabilty this is an obvious keeper. Sorry about the anon i'm at work and I'll sign in later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)

  • Comments Let's take a few points in order: (1) As far as "tens of thousands" of entries, I find 639 total, about 50 unique. (2) I can't find any source that associates the book in any way with Robbins or Ziglar, so I have to wonder what that claim is based on. (3) It did not win "Book of the Year" as claimed. Writers Digest gave the book one of five Honorable Mentions in the category of self-published inspirational books. A book called Letters to Luke actually won in that category [18]. (4) Of the other claims above, the only one I can verify is Hippo Press, a free weekly paper in Nashua. Fan-1967 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hippo Press did review it. But there was never a review or story in the Nashua Telegraph, just a listing of the author as one of dozens signing at the local B&N (no other store) during a Salute to New Authors Day on April 30, which featured "more than 30" authors in a three-hour stretch. - DavidWBrooks 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP based on relevence and notability even 690 google references sounds pretty good to me! seems to be a few voting for the delete but taking a closer look it appears only a couple people working to rid this one with sockpuppets.. BTW and OS DavidWBrooks.. I'm a looooooong time telegraph subscriber and I read your stuff man.. I was actually turned on to wikipedia by the piece you did on it earlier this month.. Keep up the good work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.4.192 (talk • contribs)
  • Additional Comment As I review this more It seems the people who want to delete argue "it's only listed at Barnes and Noble", It's only mentioned in this publication or that, It's only got 690 google references, it's only reviewed by this paper, the telegraph only mentions it for a writers signing at barnes and noble, it's only listed as a third party available on Amazon.. All these onlys add up to a pretty notable work. Far more notable than alot of entries on this site. You better carefully consider your actions as it is probable the next entry you add here will only be half as notable. It seems that the originator didn't realize the merit of this work but mistakes can be forgiven.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment One of the attempts to alter existing comments last night came from 24.61.91.82, the same IP address as the above "Additional Comment". This sock puppet is clearly getting desperate. GMcGath 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realistically, it doesn't matter anyway. We have a vanity-published book, listed but not stocked by the major booksellers, no verifiable sales, no verifiable reviews or significant attention from major press outlets. Even if no vandalism had ever occurred in this AFD, the results were inevitable from the beginning. The repeated vandalism just makes everyone involved feel better about deleting it. Fan-1967 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's exactly what Ken Lay needed: the cause of suffering is desire. Still think he would have done the same thing. This is garbled nutcase business management text that not even the most stonecold of yoga attenders in the Simi/Seemy Valley would pick up. NN, vanity, spam.Delete.-Kmaguir1 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - Problems with rampant OR have been identified, the page consists of a set of one-line anecdotes, and WP:OR is a fundamental pillar of encyclopedic integrity. This concerns have not been refuted by the opposition, who want to wait for expansion - The page has been moved to User:Whitesurf/Armed Conflict and Proselytizing for work until a non-OR version can be produced. As with yesterday, angry complaints/inquiries please direct to my talk page.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Conflict and Proselitization

Essay, non-enciclopedic abakharev 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has just been started. Please allow it some time. It is about proselitization during armed conflict, for example proselitization during insurgancies like those in Nepal, Sri Lanka or Myanmar, or during the Korean war. This is an important topic in history and theology. This will be an informative article once it has been expanded.--Whitesurf 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition H

I've nominated this article for deletion, as the text is written in future-tense, though the dates have already passed. Aside from being orphaned, nothing seems to point to this page, which would indicate that is has no inherent value. Kevin 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete --- Deville (Talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Katznelson

Vanity, fails WP:BIO abakharev 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete by WP:CSD#G4 reposted material previously deleted. --- GIen 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will destroy you

Article about a band that does not yet appear to meet WP:MUSIC. -- The Anome 06:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re WP:SISTER: which sister project do you want to move this article to? -- The Anome 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Greek Wiktionary --PEAR 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into the Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Paine

Article on non-notable failed candidate created during the last Canadian federal election. Subject's domain name now offered for sale. Victoriagirl 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was test page for userification -- Samir धर्म 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation

Delete. As it says, this is not the article, just a testpage, so shouldn't be cluttering up WP, let alone be listed in a category.

Smerus 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadifascism

Not notable neologism. Only one google reference abakharev 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Mckernan

Non-notable poker player. Allegedly finished 6th in an EPT event, although there is no record of this in the Hendon Mob Database, therefore fails WP:BIO and WP:Verifiability. Also uncategorized. Delete Essexmutant 07:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Generation Stunt Men

It's a bunch of schoolkids doing proto-Jackass. Previously New generation stunt men has been speedy deleted, see User talk:NGSM2000. Budgiekiller 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Clark (poker player)

Non-notable poker player. Article is unreferenced, uncategorized and contains POV. Delete Essexmutant 07:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, just remove POV. BK is a well-respected poker player and a moderator at the popular twoplustwo.com. --Fudgenut 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for the media coverage? If you do, you can add them to the article and that would change things. Otherwise I say delete. Simply being a respected player and twoplustwo moderator don't warrant an article. AFink 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one tournament finish in the Hendon Mob database (assuming it's the same person) [20]. Essexmutant 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE into Classes in World of Warcraft. The raw totals are 9 Delete, 2 Keep, 4 Merge. Merge preserves the material, so collapse that into 9 Delete the material, 6 Keep the material in some form. That alone is not enough of a statistical edge to make a deletion a no-brainer. The argumentation is about equal. Therefore, no consensus to delete, defaults in this case to merge, since most of the Keep-the-material comments were to merg. Most of the merge votes were to merge the material. A couple of the Merge votes were to merge the material into the separate articles for each class, but these seem not to exist, so I merged into Classes in World of Warcraft. Herostratus 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class Skills (World of Warcraft)

Game guide. Delete just like Warcraft III units and structures (AFD) and many more. Punkmorten 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Schoen

I'm not sure that having a podcast, and running a message board (even if it is a massive one) is sufficient to make you notable. Searching for his name does bring up lots of google hits, but they are not all references to him. Ladybirdintheuk 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scum Beach Polar Bear Club

Polar bear swim club that swims in Long Island Sound in winter. No real claim to notability in the article. Three GHits all from wikipedia or mirrors [21] -- Samir धर्म 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exit chaos button

Unencyclopedic contested prod, looks like some sort of advertising. MER-C 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better lending

Blatant spam, prod contested. MER-C 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a-ha, delete! - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Lee Leshi

Not a very good article, and I don't believe that she's a notable person. All Google hits for her name (in quotation marks) were for Wikipedia or similar types of site. Dancarney 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Homophobia. There are sources here, but the article is completely and utterly redundant with that article and/or societal attitudes towards homosexuality.--SB | T 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-homosexualism

DicDef. Nothing useful here that can't be handled by a Wiktionary entry, to the limited extent that the term even exists as a distinct word. Article is just an exercise in polemics. Herostratus 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what happened here.
  • (cur) (last) 04:51, September 1, 2006 Moriori (Talk | contribs) (Redirect instead of delete)
  • (cur) (last) 04:39, September 1, 2006 Herostratus (Talk | contribs) (AfD)
  • (cur) (last) 04:15, September 1, 2006 Britcom (Talk | contribs) (Stub)
Hmmm. as we can see here the page was first created at 04:15. I wasn't even done editing it when Herostratus surfed in and posted the AfD on it at 04:39. and then it disappeared altogether when Moriori redirected it to "homophobia", a page with many, many questions of neutrality, not to mention that "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. Why would Herostratus and Moriori be so blindingly quick to judge a page that was not even an hour old and was not even finished being created? I have reverted it now and continue to add more to it. I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the page until I have had a chance to flesh it out.
I took a look at Herostratus' user page, and now I think I know what his problem with this page is, and it has nothing to do with "usefulness". He states on his user page that he is a Unitarian Universalist, a well known pro-homosexual organization. UU is something that I am quite familiar with. So it appears that he may have a bias against the subject matter of the page, rather than concern about the usefulness of the page. The reason I created this page is because "anti-homosexualism" is a plank in the KKK's supremacist philosophy and the Nazi's final solution and deserves its own article. I suspect that Herostratus' is trying to silence the article rather than add to its usefulness. This is a serious subject, and it deserves serious attention. "Homophobia" on the other hand, is not a political philosophy and is a pejorative created and promoted by pro-homosexual activists for use against those that oppose their agenda and therefore has no relationship to this article. Anyone doubting that should read both pages and judge for themselves. --Britcom 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time there was hardly any article to speak of yet as 20 minutes was not enough time for me to finish before the AfD was posted on it . I felt under attack by a drive by deletion. I feel that given the circumstances the reasons stated for the AfD were less than honest. --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems sourced and encyclopaedic - although I wouldn't be opposed to a merging, if there's an appropriate target (I have no idea) WilyD 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. I have never heard the term, and I get about 120 google hits for "anti-homosexualism" and less than half that for the unhyphenated version. (Weirdly, when I accidently clicked "maps" when googling anti-homosexualism, it found the Academy Awards.) The fact that the author cites the demonstrably false definition of homophobia as "fear" (Anti-homosexualism is a calculated political philosophy ... It is not associated with a fear of homosexuals), as well as his characterization of the UU church above, leads me to believe that this is an attempt to discredit the very common and well-understood word "homophobia" by introducing a near-neologism. I agree that the Nazi and KKK anti-gay activities deserve mention, which is why we have Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Some detail could be added there. bikeable (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anything I have placed in the article could be considered POV. It is mostly undisputed history. Anyway I don't own it, you can edit it if you don't like the way it reads.
I did not say "homophobia" is a fear of homosexuals, the homophobia Wikipage says that, and I didn't put it there. I was saying that the terms are distinct from each other.
I have sourced the term back to at least 1957 on the internet. I don't believe that there is another term that describes what the Nazi's policy was with regard to homosexuals and that was many years before 1957. I would not consider it a trivial event either. For example: "The extermination of homosexuals during WWII was as a result of Nazi ______________." What else fits in this blank?
About the UU, I can source what I said if you like. They are not afraid to admit that they have many openly gay leaders and members. I have met some of them.
Anti-homosexualism does not just encompass violence, it also encompasses political opposition, rhetoric, activism and institutional and religious opposition.
I don't think this time frame for AfD is fair. I am new at this and this page is being scrutinized even before it is a day old. Don't you think that the first editor of an article should be given 24 hours, not 24 minutes before someone slaps an AfD on it? --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the rapid AfD, but it's common practice to get an early start, partly because it's easiest to find new articles and partly because it'll save the authors a lot of time in the long run. In any case... the word "homophobia" fits in just fine in the sentence you propose; or a variant, like "national homophobic policies" or something perhaps more strongly worded. The first sentence of the homophobia article says, fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, which overlaps pretty much completely with the definition you posit for "anti-homosexualism". I see that you found a 1957 reference (good work), but I still do not think the term is notable or widely used, even if it is occasionally used. (I find many more google hits for a term I thought I just made up at random, anti-Big Mac. Just because people string words together does not require us to have an encyclopedia article on them.) As for the UUs, of course they are open to gays, but I wouldn't call them a well known pro-homosexual organization. Finally, I suggest again that Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered is an appropriate (and existing) article for some of the detail you have included. bikeable (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but so far I am not being overwhelmed with logic or reasoning as to why groups are being diagnosed with a mental disorder (Homophobia) rather than simply use the obvious term for their contempt (Anti-homosexualism). --Britcom 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZayZayEM also stated on my user page that; "Homophobia...is a neologism". I think he may have a point. --Britcom 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have shown and sourced that the word predates the www and Google. Homophobia is not that old of a word. What word do you suppose they used back in 1957, or is no one old enough to remember that here. Are we engaging in sponging history away here? More sources are coming up.
But homophobia is an accepted word in the dictionary and has 9 million plus google hits. Your word falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --Alabamaboy 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this word is more like a Protologisms but the neologism prohibition still stands.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, I have shown that the two words are not synonyms and I have sourced literary usage in 1957 and 2000. The definitions are totally distinct and without similarity. The word and its meaning are unique. One word refers to philosophy the other to a neurosis. You are just angry because I put a link on "your" page. Grow up.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a neurosis, and no one claims that it is. You may wish that everyone should "simply use the obvious term", but in fact there is a word that everyone does use (homophobia), and there is a word that essentially no one uses (anti-homosexualism). Wikipedia is not here to advocate for which words ought to be used. bikeable (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. I am saying the terms are unrelated, distinct and should be understood that way. "Homophobia" describes an attitude within the mind of the individual. "Anti-homosexualism" is the political targeting of homosexuals for attack or opposition by a political or religious group. According to your logic, "Xenophobia" and "Terrorism" would mean the same thing.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I think pushing for an AfD if the article is only 20 minutes old is a little OTT but, assuming that a Redirect covers the same ground, it was only inevitable. Marcus22 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A new article that includes verifiable instances of usage. It's true that the google hits on "antihomosexualism" are in the hundreds, but "antihomosexual" has over 18,000 hits, and there are over 100 wikipedia articles that use the term. From a word-usage perspective, a sound argument could be made that there is a clear distinction between antihomosexualism and homophobia. A sound argument could also be made that there isn't. But since there are verifiable instances of people making the distinction, the article should be in Wikipedia so people can read and learn about it. Flying Jazz 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see references and an establishment for the validity of this seperate to homophobia. In many respects, it is technically homophobia that is misnamed. It is worth noting that you can't campaign "for homophobia", but you can campaign "against homosexuality". LinaMishima 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point. --Britcom 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa There. Yes when I nominated this article it was just a stub, and that happens sometimes. But even so, this is not a keepful article because there ain't no such word, it's a neologism made up by the author to try to tie together the Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church (!) together into some kind of unified movement, which is about the silliest idea I've seen today. Sure the word "anti-homosexualism" is properly formed, but you can add "anti" to most any English word. "I really only like to have sofas in my house, I'm pretty much anti-chair" is a meaningful English sentence which has not doubt been uttered. Does that mean that "anti-chair" is a real English word that should have a dictionary definition or a Wikipedia article? No, and neither is "Anti-homosexualism". The whole unsaid but obvious WP:POINT of the article is: Don't like gays? Well you're a Nazi of a Klanner then. But look. First of all, the Nazis hated lots of people, they weren't primarily an anti-gay organization and neither is the Klan. Second of all, everybody was anti-gay until about 1960 or whenever. Third of all, you'd have include the Catholic Church and the FBI and God knows who else if you want to list anti-gay organizations, if you're going to reach back into the 1940's or whatever. I mean since we're talking about organizations who showed "organized hostility toward or opposition against homosexuals as a group" but not as their primary thrust, you'd have to list practically every social organization and private company that existed, since we're going back into the 40's. Finally, the writer's contention that I'm against this article because I'm a Unitarian is just bizarre; I'm against it in spite of being a Unitarian, a denomination sympathetic to the writer's WP:POINT (hey, my minister is gay), but, here, I'm a Wikipedian first. You can't tie the Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Islam together with your original research and neologism into some kind of non-existant movement, and you can't hijack Wikipedia for your own ends, no matter how noble. Herostratus 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the dispute shouldn't be about personalities, but your contention that the word is "a neologism made up by the author" surprised me when the author of the article cites verifiable usage of the word from 1957 and 1971. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Adding an article to the namespace is not disruptive. It is a good-faith attempt to contribute. Your objections seem to be based on WP:NPOV, that the author has written an article with a biased point of view to "make a point." The cure for that is to edit the article to make it NPOV--not to delete the article. http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/chauncey.html is a faculty web-page at Yale by a man who uses the word in describing his field of study. It is unlikely that the word "anti-chair" appears in a similar context. Flying Jazz 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus and Moriori (as shown above) are the two responsible for the "drive by" AfD and redirect. The two of them are just trying to defend their attack on the page that I am trying to work on. Moriori violated the AfD rules when he redirected the page to "Homophobia" 12 minutes after the AfD box was posted on the page. In light of their zeal to delete this page, even violating Wikipedia rules to do so, I think their opinions posted here are suspect. Remember, Wikipedia's code of conduct says "Assume good faith". I have no Wikipedia violations, and I have no axe to grind. This is my first page and I have done my best to be neutral with a topic that generates lots of emotions. The examples I chose are the most obvious examples of "Anti-homosexualism" that I can think of. I would love for other Wikiedians to add more or edit what I have written for accuracy. But that does not seem to be the agenda here. The agenda here is to attack me and my edits as worthless or underhanded. If they are so bad, then why not just edit them instead of jumping straight to deletion? Why not discuss it on the talk page? No, that’s not good enough for them they want to get rid of it so no one can read what it says. I thought we were supposed to be neutral here, and not favoring one side of a controversy. It seems to me that the word has a history and now apparently a controversy because some seemingly want to control what you read by forcing a proverbial square peg (political or religious hatred or opposition to homosexuality) into a round hole ("homophobia"). (See how many words I had to use to say what it is without using the one word "Anti-homosexualism".) Apparently we have two schools of thought here. One that says: "Oh the author has an agenda and that's the reason he set up the page." and on the other hand there is: "Oh the author just doesn't understand that we all have decided to change the definition of "Anti-homosexualism" to a word that makes it sound like those who are against homosexuals are suffering from a "phobia", and well, he must not have gotten the memo." Not one of them has addressed the glaring hole in their reasoning. Namely that "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups, and "homophobia" always refers to the MINDSET of individuals. The words are clearly not synonyms. Everybody can understand this when they read it. But some don't seem to want it put into print. That means they think they own Wikipedia. That also means that they think they know better than you what you should be reading. They are trying to slant Wikipedia's content, and by the same token, limit your access to knowledge they don't "approve" of. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Do these people represent a "neutral" viewpoint? It seems that I am getting a better education here than I bargained for, and unfortunately, its all bad. What a black-eye this is for Wikipedia. What a black-eye this is for the Internet. Sickening. --Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should take your own advice and assume good faith. I attacked the page? I have a zeal to delete even tho I changed delete to a redirect? My opinion posted here (is) suspect? Instead of giving me a right old bollocking you should be thanking me because my redirect allowed you to make such profound statements as "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups". Yeah right. Moriori 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the AfD box "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" Redirecting before the AfD discussion period ends is not allowed. That's all I'll say. The rest is below. --Britcom 10:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration and I agree with much of what you've written. But frustration isn't a reason to make personal attacks against individuals or against Wikipedia as a whole. You might want to step back a little from the AfD page, keep working to improve the article, and let new folks come to state their opinions. Flying Jazz 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right of course. --Britcom 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goldfritha 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
  1. This is a new article only a few days old. It has not had enough time to develop.
  2. The reasons given above are listed as: "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" on WP's deletion policy. WP:DEL. They don't qualify as valid reasons for deletion of a new article according to the policy.
  3. Quote: "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." WP:AFD This article was less than an hour old and no discussion was made on the article's talk page either for deletion or redirection.
  4. The article that some have voted to redirect this article to, (Homophobia) has been described as a Neologism WP:NEO (see above) and may not be allowed. Also, its neutrality is currently marked as disputed. Anti-homosexualism has been sourced in the article at least as far back as 1957, and 1971, and 2000 with hundreds of quotations currently on the internet, so it can't be a Neologism. Both articles also clearly identify conflicting differences in their respective definitions. Even if one does not agree, clearly there is a dispute and dispute is enough for keeping the article according to policy. The dispute can also be verified on the homophobia talk page.
  5. "Don't bite the newcomers." WP:BITE. The author is a newcomer to WP and WP policy states that editors should help newcomers develop new pages when possible, not just delete them.
  6. Its a good article compared to many. It has potential.
  7. The subject matter is current, controversial and has been a factor in world events and world history.
  8. The subject matter is likely to be a factor in future events. (the author) --Britcom 10:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE does not pertain; no one has treated you inappropriately, we are simply discussing the suitability of an article. Nor does anyone dispute the importance of the subject matter. And how is it that the disputed term "can't be a neologism" with its hundreds of google hits, but you think homophobia can be, despite 100,000 times as many google references? bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided On the one hand, it appears to be neologism. On the other hand, being against something is different than being afraid of it. Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear, and should be instead moved into this artical. Perhaps a rewording of the title might suffice so it's no longer neologism. Mugaliens 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear: that's because the common usage of "homophobia" has little to do with fear, despite what you might expect from the suffix -phobia; see extensive discussions of this subject at Talk:Homophobia. I am fearful that this AfD will result in wikipedia's homophobia article being split into two, and putting the extremely well-known term homophobia (10 million google hits) on par with what I still believe to be an uncommon word or neologism anti-homosexualism, with a few hundred google hits at most. bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bikeable is right that homophobia is a much more commonly used term than anti-homosexualism. However, the uncommon word was used in the 50s while the common one was coined for its current definition in the 60s. The neologism argument is unsound. The idea of having two or more articles on two or more related but not identical topics should not instill us with fear because there are precedents for this in Wikipedia. For example: Judeophobia, Anti-semitism, Anti-Judaism and Persecution of Jews are four closely related, non-identical topics. With verifiable citations (and still a lot of argument), the differences in meaning and article scope that you'd expect from an encyclopedia get worked out. Flying Jazz 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Wikipages Linuxism, Raelism, and anti-Turkism all have Google hits in the hundreds, and ineffablilism has only 14 hits on Google. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy about Google hits though. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many forms of Anti-homosexualism that don't include persecution or violence. Protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church for example. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect example of homophobia, according to the Anti-defamation League. "Westboro baptist church" homophobia OR homophobic gets me 28,000 google hits. Using anti-homosexualism instead, I get only a few hits... the very first of which is the wikipedia page for WBC on which you added a link to Anti-homosexualism. The usage is quite clear. bikeable (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, anyone who wants to know what persecution is only needs to ask a survivor of Auschwitz or visit the Holocaust page. It is not federally protected speech.
Second, there is a logic problem in comparing the words Homophobia and Anti-homosexualism. Anti-homosexualism is a more general term. Homophobia, as defined, would be correctly classified as a form of Anti-homosexualism; but not all forms of Anti-homosexualism are Homophobia related and some are non-violent. Some forms are moralistic, some are political, and some are traditional. For example, not all forms of Anti-Americanism include persecution or violence against Americans. To use the logic stated above, you would have to say that all "peaceful" Anti-American "protests" are a form persecution. That just doesn't fly. Therefore, the title of the article should not be limited to just "persecution". Anti-homosexualism is the most logical form. --Britcom 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not federally protected speech. …Which assumes that 1. a US POV is entirely acceptable here on wikipedia, and 2. speech that incites hatred is perfectly acceptable. Even if your point is correct, I suspect that the retitling to a more obvious title might be a good idea - campaigns against homosexuality, for example. It should be noted that persecution is not defined by the scale of the act, but the intent. LinaMishima 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the Westboro Baptist Church is a church in the USA, therefore United States law applies to it and The US Constitution protects it, and everyone else in the USA, the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech. I was referring to WBC's anti-homosexual demonstrations as federally protected. I am aware that other nations do not recognize a right to demonstrate. The US Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right to freedom of speech. Both positive and negative speech is protected. It has been that way for over two hundred years. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. --Britcom 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify a minor point of law, wikipedia, along with all non-government websites, classes as a private forum, and so the first ammendment does not apply. LinaMishima 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment seems to imply that I have somehow invoked the First Amendment within Wikipedia; that was certainly not the purpose of my comment. I referenced its protections with regard to WBC's speech, which it has exercised while standing on a public street corner or other public place. The real point of my comment was that anyone standing on a public street corner in the US exercising their Constitutional rights cannot legally be considered engaging in "persecution". While their speech is definitely anti-homosexual, it is also lawful. The discussion or documentation of that subject within Wikipedia is not the same as the (above implied) claiming of any rights within Wikipedia. I don't see how one could make that assumption from what I said. Discussion about others use of the First Amendment should not be construed as attempting to claim a personal right under it in Wikipedia. --Britcom 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, the en: Wikipedia is written in English, and "anti-homosexualism" is not common English usage. The phrases "homophobia" and "persecution of homosexuals" have clear meanings in common use, which seem to be understood by every other poster here. If you want to redefine common English use, please do it elsewhere first, and when the English-speaking world adopts your usage, we will be able to do so as well. -- The Anome 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speak for "every other poster here." Speak for yourself only. I'm a poster in here and I've never understood that the word "homophobia" has a clear meaning. The section dedicated to etymology and usage at the homophobia article indicates a huge amount of confusion and debate over that term and its usage. "Common usage" is not a requirement for an article in Wikipedia. "Verifiable usage" is. Words and ideas are not like corporations or products which must be very well-known before Wikipedia has an article on them. You are setting a standard that is different from Wikipedia's standard. Flying Jazz 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Some new references now appear on the Anti-homosexualism page, including one from an official Israeli government website. --Britcom 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. Obviously this article is very much farther along than when I nominated it. How about removing all the non-Nazi material and renaming it Nazi persecution of homosexuals. That would be a good article (although more sourcing is needed). Otherwise my objection still stands. Also, if there is not an article along the lines of State persecution of homosexuals (which I'd be surprised if there isn't) that would be a useful article. Herostratus 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article you suggest already exists at History of gay people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am keeping my vote to delete. That said, I wanted to point out to editors that Britcom is attempting to replace the word homophobia with Anti-homosexualism in a number of articles on Wikipedia, such as Ku Klux Klan. I believe this type of POV pushing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Finally, while I understand why some people would want to use Anti-homosexualism over homophobia, this is a debate that--yet again--does not belong at Wikipedia. If Britcom can convince the world at large to accept the term, he/she is welcome to come back here and restart the article. Otherwise, delete it.--Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I noticed that in the end…LinaMishima 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that Britcom's contributions overwhelmingly suggest he/she is trying to promote the adoption of this word at Wikipedia. See [22].--Alabamaboy 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a good idea to search through Wikipedia and create links to a new article at appropriate places. This is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even though I understand it could be regarded as POV-pushing by someone who believes the article should not be included. An AfD shouldn't prevent someone from doing this. I think it is part of Wikipedia's mission to spread knowledge about concepts and their associated words regardless of whether the word is in common use. This is particularly true for a word like antihomosexualism that has existed and been used for decades. My impression is that debates about word choice and word usage occur at Wikipedia all the time in talk pages and AfD discussions, but I agree with Alabamaboy that they usually don't belong in the articles themselves. The "Modern usage" section of the article was POV-pushing when it said one word "should not be confused" with another and I've edited this. Better to provide footnotes to verifiable citations where the usage is discussed and leave it to the reader about what should be said or written. Note: I am keeping my vote to keep. Flying Jazz 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I changed my mind about this. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, if one scratches the surface of Alabamaboy’s conspiracy theory one will discover that all of the recent links that I have placed on other pages were to wikilink the existing unlinked word "anti-homsexual" to the 'Anti-homosexualism article and not (as he suggests) changing all the Homophobia links, to Anti-homosexualism. I challenge anyone to take a look at my edits and see the truth for themselves, and while they are at it, they should also go and read the vitriol that I have had to put up with from Alabamaboy on "his" Talk:Ku Klux Klan page after I put a link on that page (which he promptly deleted). If that is what Alabamaboy is accusing me of, then I plead guilty! I repeat my above statement of Wikipedia policy; “Don’t Bite the Newcomers” WP:BITE. --Britcom 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that page and I do not see vitriol there. You are being unreasonable and uncivil with these challenges and accusations. Being a newcomer does not give you special rights in debates, and when a newcomer is unreasonable and bites, it is perfectly understandable for someone to bite back within reason (although maintaining civility is always the best policy). Your posts above about another editor's religion were way out of line and in many other ways you've been unnecessarily and foolishly confrontational on this page. Stop it. Also, see my most recent comment here. Please respond to it on the talk page. Flying Jazz 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get back to the discussion about the article and quit antagonizing and the author. --Britcom 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaking disagreement and the occasional mistake from other users for antagonism. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Flying Jazz 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most of this information into homophobia or Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered and redirect the article accordingly. The discussion here from the creator of the article is enough for me to throw assume good faith to the wind. Notice how assuming good faith is NOT encouraged in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Let's review. Britcom has 'attacked' Herostratus through his religion, claiming that it has a 'pro-homosexual' agenda (note how Britcom uses this AS an attack as if it were a BAD thing. Is it unreasonable that this leads me to question his motives?). What would we do if an editor who made an arguing point based upon the fact that their 'opponent's' Userpage had a "This user is Christian" or "This user is Catholic" userbox on it? Of course, we would begin to assume BAD faith (as we should). Britcom also says that the homophobia article has a 'pro-homosexual' POV push. These are red flags to me, personally, and are enough for me to assume that this article was CREATED as a bad faith POV-fork of homophobia. That being said, there IS some good information here, and rather than being spent in a POV-fork article, it should be placed where it belongs, in one of the two articles I suggested. The forthing at the mouth that continues from editors who claim that homophobia does not include opposition to homosexuality or is limited to a FEAR of homosexuals (even though all common sense regarding the usage of the term in actual language would have us believe otherwise) is rather disconcerting and, in my opinion, damaging to the wiki. CaveatLectorTalk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK but that's not really an argument about the content of the article or the merits of the term though. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say keep. The word homophobia has a bad history, and in spite of user:bikeable's continual assertions to the contrary, the coiner of the word has been quoted as intending the "fear" component (which quote can be readily found in a Google search). Diverting the discussion specifically of anti-homosexual bigotry over to a term which we can now see is not simply a contributor coinage affords the possibility of being able to discuss that with a WP:NPOV. The big dispute about homophobia per se is that the word itself is POV-pushing; therefore it is impossible to keep the article stable excepting that the enforcer squad for one POV makes sure that the article doesn't say much about that issue. I personally would move all the discussion of prejudice to anti-homosexualism and have homophobia point back to it as a main article, but keep both articles. Mangoe 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally see where you are coming from and the issues with the usage of "homophobia". However, the plain fact is that "homophobia" is used for a great variety of meanings, and "anti-homosexualism" is hardly used at all. It would be nice if we could, as you suggest, "move the discussion of prejudice" to anti-homosexualism, which I agree would make sense based on the apparent etymologies and what the words ought to mean. However, this would be original research. We cannot be prescriptive about what words should or should not mean; we can only report what people use them for. I would recommend the article on Linguistic prescription and I would argue that only a descriptive attitude is WP:NPOV. A true description of usage is that many people use "homophobia" for diverse meanings, and very few use "anti-homosexualism", so we may not move the discussion from the former to the latter. bikeable (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it seems to me that all your words here do not add up to the actuality of the homophobia article. It is in fact used for POV-pushing as a matter of course, and its content is original research as a matter of course, because while we refer the daylights out of it in order to keep the various POV Patrols from reverting, the synthesis of those references into an article has to go beyond simply referring to an authoritative analysis. Without that, the article cannot be written.
For you to label one usage as "true" is, in the sense you prefer here, original research, for it is surely your sense of the world you are expressing here, and not some dilligently researched monograph on how the word is used. It is not my sense that the situation is so (if you will pardon the oxymoron) cleanly obscured. The article is being held hostage to the POV-pushing that the word suggests, for Wikipedia is not really distinct from the rest of the world in the issue of the supposed meaning for the word.
It isn't really true that people looking for anti-homosexual prejudice need be confounded by two articles. Indeed, were I editor-in-chief I would have the -phobia article point back to the other, prominently, above the text. But what you're saying here is that because a lot of people use the words in a muddled and inconstant fashion, that Wikipedia's discussion of the topic likewise must be muddled and inconstant, because it cannot be allowed to structurally reflect the real distinction between talking about that prejudice and speculating about the causes behind it. So we're to be stuck with an article that is structurally POV-pushing, because it doesn't permit a clear distinction.
Finally, NPOV is dead as a doornail if we are going to commit to a term which is the subject of POV bias in the real world. The suggested "new" term is perhaps uncommon, but is demonstrated to be not unknown, and it is certainly neutral. I say that this is good enough, and that the division between the two articles affords the possibility of real neutrality. The single article does not. Mangoe 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate (no seriously, I think this is the problem). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge, right? Since knowledge is inherently based upon its perception and uses within society (i.e. there is no 'TRUE' knowledge, only what people percieve that they know) and since homophobia is used primarily within society to refer to a variety of things including 'anti-homosexualism', the Wiki should reflect this knowledge. Anti-choice redirects to Pro-life, and so it should. Even though it is quite arguable that they are two completely different things they are essentially the same thing, it's just that one is used more frequently than the other (Pro-life, that is) so the one used LESS frequently used redirects to the one used MORE frequently used. Why is this debate not turning out the same way? Probably because some people feel a linguistic imperative to associate homophobia with an actual FEAR, even though the common use of the word does not play out this out. Let's take the word hydrophobia as an example. Hydrophobia does not refer to a FEAR of water (yes, it goes to a disambig page, but if Wikipedia wishes to stay consistent, it really shouldn't). It's the medical term for rabies. Should we create a hydrophobia article or redirect the link to aquaphobia because we must insist that hydroPHOBIA MUST refer to a FEAR of water? Certainly not. This article is a POV fork resulting from an insecurity some people have with being called homoPHOBIC if they have a prejudice against homosexuals (for WHATEVER the reason). The fact is that common parlance has used the term in this fashion. Therefore, Wikipedia should reflect that. Not some idea of a 'correct' term or definition based upon its linguistics. No such 'correct' definition exists. As I have said, some of the content of this article IS valuable. But it should be merged and redirected, not kept as a fork. CaveatLectorTalk 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that there is no true knowledge is merely a commitment to yet another POV, and in this context, a bad one. And you've neatly skipped over one of the two central objections: that the assertion of "common parlance" is original research-- namely, it's you presumably appealing to your own experience. I don't have that experience; I have the "it's the pet phrase of one faction and rejected by the other" experience. The homophobia article, most of the time, admits of this, though it is heavily edited to keep that mention to the slightest possible.
Your counterexamples are bad and misrepresent the coinage of homophobia-- which again I must point out is a matter of documented fact; the citation is, at this instant, in the third footnote in Weinberg's very first sentence. He intended it to mean exactly what the naive reader would guess; he states this bluntly and without room for equivocation. The dispute and POV-pushing from that point on are familiar, leading to the current situation in which Weinberg's meaning and a supposedly more general meaning (but which critics would say is contaminated by the original meaning) try to live side by side in the article.
I don't think we must be trapped by this state of confusion into writing something that is similarly confused. The other term may not be widely used, but it is there and it offers an opening for clarity. (The claims that it is a neologism have been demonstrated incorrect, after all.) It's easy enough for someone who is used to using "homophobia" in the more general sense to be directed to the other article. And I think the implication that there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. Right now you are essentially settling for the position that we need to reinforce the confused usage by respecting it-- well, not rigorously, because the end result certainly isn't rigor, but out of sense of mechanical principle rather than out of sense of superior explanation. Mangoe 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the usuage of homophobia in common parlance is 'confused' is outright linguistically descriptive nonsense (sorry, but it is). Words do not have ESSENTIAL meanings, they only have the meanings that the society they are used in gives them. This is NOT a POV. This is a linguistic and literary FACT. To suppose that there is some sort of 'right' usage of a word and that a COMMON usage of the word is somehow 'wrong' or 'misguided' or 'confused' reeks of a philosophy guided by some sort of cultural superiority complex. The idea that recognizing a word's definition in common parlance is original research is complete bollocks, considering the comparative results from a mere Google search, much less a search through scholarly databases and journals, of homophobia and 'anti-homosexualism'. Also, Weinburg should not enter into a discussion of what homophobia MEANS other than to acknowledge why and how he coined it (NOT to proclaim his coinage as some sort of 'correct' definition of the word. His authority there expired as soon as the word entered common language). The fact of the matter is that there is no superior explanation in creating TWO articles, ONE for 'homophobia' and one for 'anti-homosexulism'. All this does is serve to CONFUSE the readers of the Wiki and advance the POV that these two terms somehow describe two different things (when common parlance has it that they do not). In the end, I am afraid I just have to state my belief that you are just resolutely incorrect when you say that Wikipedia should 'influence readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense'. There are plenty of WP:NOT pages, but one thing that an ENCYCLOPEDIA certainly IS NOT is a dogmatic excercise in pushing particular views of what words mean. It is meant to 'encircle all knowledge'. To split something that is seen as ONE concept within most of the English speaking world into TWO articles is to push the POV that the common use of the word is somehow 'incorrect', and is, to be flatly honest, downright ridiculous. CaveatLectorTalk 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say "FACT"; I say, your evidence for "common parlance" is your own, one-POV-identified community. I find people using homophobia in both ways, and I especially see people using it with the denotation you assert and the connotation of what the etymology implies and the coiner intended. And I find a lot of people avoiding the word, for this very reason. Talking about "most of the English-speaking world" is at best dubious and at worst a refusal to acknowledge sociental divisions that are measured with great accuracy at every election.
Wikipedia cannot avoid being "a dogmatic exercise in pushing particular views of what words mean". The very basis of the conflict here is controlling whether Wikipedia authorizes anti-homosexualism as a name for one phenomenon. Mangoe 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I don't think it would be very civil of wikipedia to take a stance that gaybashing is acceptable, either. Which is infact one of the big reasons that people avoid 'homophobia', a desire to not admit that they think homosexuality is wrong. Despite, y'know, the bonobos, and the general failure of 'corrective' courses. LinaMishima 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let's hold on a moment here. You just said that you find people using 'homophobia' in BOTH contexts...so isn't creating an entirely different word in order to split off one of those meanings a POV fork? You also now claim that Wikipedia IS a place that pushes a particular VIEW of what words mean. Doesn't that very idea violate WP:NPOV? I am NOT arguing that 'anti-homosexualism' does not mean 'being against homosexuals' (I mean, to be frank and French, no shit...), what I am saying is that concept is already described by the word 'homophobia', and to say 'No no no, all of you who are using that way are WRONG' by creating a seperate article for the concept is to push a POV. CaveatLectorTalk 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Thank you, CL. I've never argued that there was only one meaning for "homophobia"; there are many usage, as is true with many words in English. Wikipeda should be reporting on those. Mangoe accuses us of thinking that somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. But this is precisely the point of WP:POV and WP:OR. Clearing up lingustic confusion is not our goal (never mind that the "coiner" of a word has no control over how it is used later!). Reporting accurately on the meanings of words (read: usage, of all stripes, not the meanings we think they should have) is the best we can do. bikeable (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a POV fork. Yes, Wikipedia is an agency in the control of the meaning of words, and no, this isn't intrinsically a POV issue (although in this case we both recognize, or should, that it is related to one of the POV divisions). If public discourse is dominated by weasel words on the one hand and/or slurs on the other, it's bloody obvious that a supposedly NPOV reference has to avoid popularly understood language. Since the controversy over the article consistently centers on exactly those concerns, it is entirely reasonable to fork the current content into two subjects-- NOT points of view, because they aren't. If your point of view on the subjects is to prevail, it can do so when they are kept distinct. People would approach two articles with distinct POVs, and would argue about each as before. I think the argument in anti-homosexualism would probably relax some because the fact of bigotry and its expressions are more or less a matter of simple historical documentation. Conversely the argument over the phobic origin of antipathy to homosexuality might increase, but it might also improve in quality when it cannot hide behind the more general issue.
The sentence that you, User:Bikeable, quote is not the clearest thing I've ever written, I grant you, but in any case you've parsed it out incorrectly. If I'm accusing you of anything (and can we Wikipedia:Assume good faith?), it is of believing that "there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using 'homophobia' in the general sense." If we use parlance here which is clearer that popular discourse, and popular discourse evolves to reflect the change, that's not a bad thing. Mangoe 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe, I didn't mean "accuse" in any particularly bad way; sorry. I understood you properly, I think. I agree that wikipedia should help with clarity, of course: we can make sure people understand what a word means (although this is really the function of a dictionary, and wp's purpose goes deeper). However, when a word has multiple meanings in common use, we should not be attempting to reassign one (or more) of those meanings to another word, even for the sake of clarity. For example, "moot" has two nearly opposed meanings ("open to debate" and, more recently, "not worth discussion"). Even if the latter is a confused usage of the former, it's not our place to correct the usage, but only to report on it. I think the is the issue we have here. (Incidentally, we should copy this discussion to Talk:Homophobia after the AfD, as it's an interesting recap of a lot of points regularly brought up there.) bikeable (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of "moot" the discussion would of necessity have to split, but within a single article. But the issue here is beyond simple definition, which is the entire issue with "moot".
In effect you are advocating that Wikipedia commit to what you claim (and lots of people dispute): that homophobia means anti-homosexualism, and without the connotation of mental disorder as a cause. In practice the article is and is not edited this way, because it tends to reflect the connotation attached to phobias, and because the considerable denunciation of the term as reflecting this connotation is played down as much as can be gotten way with. What we get is an article which tends to assume that fixing homophobia-- which is to say, opposition to homosexuality-- is a matter of psychological treatment or at least conditioning.
That's where the POV-pushing comes in, and why people who object to homosexuality see a biased article. It's a subject of controversy whether the word even has two distinct meanings, or whether its generalized meaning is simply people who believe it is a phobia getting sloppy and political. At any rate, I disagree that people are going to be so confused at going to homophobia and finding themselves directed to another place to read about one aspect of it-- even one which they consider the primary aspect.
Compared to the mess I'm having to deal with in railway signalling, this is a piece of cake. In that subject, American and British practices have evolved so separately that term-for-term substitution often isn't possible (as in the rail siding versus passing loop issue). Earlier in the summer, we had a big battle because the category of "locomotive engineers" had been created-- to tag people who designed locomotives, and not people who operated them (the American meaning). When I tried to change this to a more universally intelligible label, "locomotive designers", there was an uproar from some of the British contingent, who would not give up their term. Eventually, the need for an unambiguous term prevailed, leaving us with the possibility that Wikipedia may lead Brits to switch to American usage, but it's something we'll just have to live with. Mangoe 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though you feel that the term homophobia in all its uses will always and forever be connected with a psychological condition. But, then again, so is racism in some aspects (being an '-ism'), and that does not even have a 'phobia' attached to it. Should those who object to such a 'negative' term for their beliefs be allowed to create an article entitled 'anti-African-Americanism' because they view an article on 'racism' as biased? This is a very simple issue, Mangoe, and your example actually clarifies what must be done here. What we have here is a group of people who are upset that a word that might be considered disparaging and its common usage (also disparaging) might refer to them. Now, the goal is to split this word into TWO words, and pretend as though the first word does not refer to what it actually refers to in common knowledge. I will say this again, because it bares being said over and over again. Wikipedia is not the place to push for a particular meaning for a word. One side of this debate wishes to acknowledge that a word has multiple meanings in common parlance. Most of the other side of the debate is getting red-faced at the possibility that they are inherently being called this word, screaming 'POV' and trying to create a fork that doesn't even come close to reflecting knowledge and usage. (I would like to make a special note here that not all of those who support this side are homophobic. I tried to say that with 'most' but I realize it might be interpreted that way. It's entirely possible some want to include the fork based on a difference in philosophy regarding WP:NPOV and not because they are homophobes.) One of these sides is POV pushing. It is not the first one. In your example, you would not abide the creation of two seperate catagories to express the same profession because one group was upset by one of the terms. That is ludicrous. NPOV does not mean that the wiki should be modified from what it is meant to encompass (knoweldge and uses) in order that some people might not get offended. CaveatLectorTalk 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of you repeating it is going to get rid of the reality that entries in Wikipedia are going to be used, and more or less correctly as that sort of thing goes, as a normative authority on what the words mean. Therefore it is not possible to assign names to articles and at the same time avoid pushing for particular meanings.
In your abandoment of good faith you've asserted that the rewritten homophobia would not even mention what you claim is the most common meaning of the word. I don't see you you can successfully defend that claim, if only because (in the event you don't prevail) you and a host of others are going to make absolutely sure that the one article refers prominently to the other. And so will I, for that matter. Splitting the issue across two articles is not going to prevent anyone from getting his or her points in, except for the connotation issue which you claim isn't really there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt your POV to have a structure which discouraged it.
It isn't just myself who refused two categories in the locomotive designer incident, but the rest of the community. It went up for a RfM, and my position prevailed. I don't recall whether two (redundant) categories was considered, but I suspect that if it had been proposed someone would have shot it down as a POV fork (which it would have been). Mangoe 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaveatLector hits the nail on the head when they say that homophobia really is an "ism", only named as such due to the complete awkwardness and lack of clarity in any possible names (homosexualism? Sexualitism? high-kinsey-scoreism?). This is what homophobia is recognised as, not a phobia. Yes, the word sucks, but anti-homosexualism is even more disjointed (anti-race? anti-coloured? anti-women?), and it really is not wikipedia's place to try and promote society to find a new word for something. As I've already hinted at, POV pushing runs both ways in this matter. Homophobia is seen as being "pro-gay", or at least not supportive of the voiced objections to sexuality. And quite frankly, Racism takes a similar, correct (civil, non-attacking stance. Anti-homophobia seems to be a term prefered by those who are seemingly "anti-gay", who would rather avoid the negative consequences of such a title. That's not to say that the current article is not nuetral, it's been well written. Whilst it is wrong to arbitarilly label peple as homophobic, I can see that if this article remains, attempts will occur to change any mentions of someone being 'homophobic', often even those straight out of a reference, over to the far kinder and less inflamatory (and hence more accepting) term of anti-homophobia. To finish, I'll repeat: homophobia is an 'ism', just like racism LinaMishima 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votes Well I make it 7 for Delete (including Nom.); 5 for Keep (which includes one weak keep and two votes from 'unknown' (red) users); 3 for Redirect (including one weak redirect); 1 Merge; 1 undecided and 1 Rename. Divisive huh? Anyone I've missed or anyone care to change their votes to get a clear consensus? Marcus22 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Cleveland

Founder of the website Moab World (which has no traffic ranking), and the "not so famous" Moab band, "The Shed" says it all. Punkmorten 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zumbyes

Non-notable college a cappella group. No real claim to notability. The closest it comes is: "The New York Times has reportedly called the Zumbyes "the most dangerous acapella group" but this has yet to be confirmed." savidan(talk) (e@) 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Street Mix

Non-notable college a cappella group. No real claim to notability other than a trivial reference to some of their lyrics in an alleged book about college culture. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Octet

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to any notability at all outside of their campus. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPI Simple Harmonic Motion

College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Travelling with the school's glee club and collaborating with other non-notable groups is not a claim to fame. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonic Sol-fa

College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Claims to have sold 100,000 cds but there is no verifiable, third party source for this. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this is not a collegiate a cappella group. Did you read the article? Jesuschex 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did. It's in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also in Category:Professional a cappella groups, and as far as I can tell, those two are (or should be) mutually exclusive. It was put in collegiate by an editor who was removing a copyvio. I'll fix it. Jesuschex 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think WP:MUSIC is a problem; they've toured, they've been independently reviewed. They have one album on a label, and some self-released ones, but A Capella is somewhat out of the mainstream, so I think we could stand to be flexible. I don't see this article making Wikipedia more indiscriminate in its selection of topics. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this "independently reviewe" claim from? There are no sources in the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While notability might be sufficient, I am more concerned about the complete absence of any reputable third-party sources to verify. I just feel that any group worthy of its own encyclopedia article should have at least one good source other than its own website and a nearly blank listing at AMG (which is not restricted to notable bands). If someone can provide, I am happy to change my opinion. --Satori Son 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see an issue here. They have an amg entry, all of their cds are in stock in amazon[23], 8 hits about them on google news. Doesn't seem like a random garage band to me. - Bobet 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups (might as well). Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Blue

College a cappella group that doesn't even attempt to make a claim that would satisfy WP:MUSIC savidan(talk) (e@) 09:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page contains no false information, and as a specific independent organization I think The New Blue merits its own individual page. The New Blue already has an entry in the list of collegiate a cappella groups, so merging it with that list would simply mean deleting this page. That list functions as a portal to other wikipedia pages and websites that elaborate on each a cappella groups. Such elaboration may be larging lacking on The New Blue page at this time, but as a stub it is implied that in the future more information will be added to the New Blue page. I don't agree with WP:MUSIC so I will not attempt to explain why this page should exist according to those guidelines. Why limit accurate, non-distracting, non-overlapping information?
As long as you are not disputing that the page doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, I won't argue with you. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any claims about this article's validity according to WP:MUSIC.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of collegiate a capella groups (might as well). Mangojuicetalk 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a Sensual Note

College a cappella group which doesn't meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. The first nomination, which was closed as no consensus, contained such gems as "Sorry if you Wikipedia snobs think that it is unworthy." savidan(talk) (e@) 09:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a rationale for keep. I've nominated a lot of less-than-notable a cappella groups for deletion. If you think there are others that don't meet the standards, nominate them for deletion. If all the other articles jumped off a bridge...you get the picture. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JPD (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of construction equipment manufacturers

List cruft. I did begin to wikify this article, but none of these companies have articles about them that I could find (I only looked for the first 40 or so!). I don't feel this adds anything, unless someone feels like writing articles for all the companys. Ladybirdintheuk 09:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bucolo

Article written in Italian that has not been translated despite being tagged on 6 August. There is a note on the talk page to say that a corresponding article on the Italian wiki was deleted as self promoting spam. I guess we don't really need to keep this as it is and there seems to be no effort to improve it so I suggest we Delete it. Spartaz 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


The page fails to meet the “Verifiability” and “Reliable sources” requirements of the encyclopedia. I have deleted it. —Encephalon 11:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blog Blog

Prod removed by anon without explanation. My original prod said "Probably a vanity creation. In any case fails WP:WEB quite clearly." Pascal.Tesson 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maplewiki

Contested prod; a reason for contesting was given on Talk:Maplewiki (effectively the Pokemon test), but I disagree; Alexa worse than 1000000, no real assertions of notability. --ais523 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were to reattach this to Mapletip.com, the maplewiki.net domain was RECENTLY purchased as you can see on Whois, therefore the Alexa ranking is DEFINETLY low. And also, unique google hits will also be low due to the newness. When Maplewiki was attached to Mapletip, it obtained MANY articles with many people helping every day. But now, you are going with a new domain that was recently purchased for Maplewiki. Please reconsider. Sources, are of coures in the Maplewiki itself. 

 Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
 Domain Name: MAPLEWIKI.NET
  Created on: 18-Aug-06
  Expires on: 18-Aug-07
  Last Updated on: 19-Aug-06

Source

-- Mapletip 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that still fails WP:V - which cannot be overcome by editor's concensus. WilyD 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you mean the articles itself are unreliable as in no sources? If you're talking about the monster database the source is Mapletip itself, which is very relibale as we have built it ourselves. Please before you delete tell me what is 'unreliable'. 68.78.148.16 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS and WP:V if it's unclear to you , but the articles doesn't cite any reliable, third party sources. In general, Maplewiki is not an authenticating source. WilyD 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, delete it for now, I will remake the article when we fix the issue. Mapletip 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black River House

It is impossible to verify any of the details prevented on the Black River House website and other pages written by the site's owner through independent sources. No other articles on the Marchant case, even eleven years after the site claims the news broke upon the public, despite the highly sensational nature of the incident. No other articles on the dramatic and enigmatic disappearance of the band The Secret Method. No other articles on 2005 suicide at the house, aside from a PDF copy of a BBC article which may not be written in a professional tone and cannot now be located on the BBC website proper. Town of Kildubhan, Ireland does not appear to exist outside of references to the site. Book which the site's author claims to have written, published by Random House, does not appear to exist; should be some reference even if the edition was limited. Very probable hoax or publicity stunt. -- PegasusGrrl 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral process outsourcing

Contested prod (no reason given for contesting). Neologism and blatant advertising; needs serious cleanup if kept. --ais523 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Roberts

delete as failing WP:MUSIC. I also nominate his band Smash-Up Derby. The band does not appear to have toured or had any records released per criteria laid down in WP:MUS. Only trace is a demo record. No entry on allmusic. The entry for Smash-Up Derby was created by Adrian Roberts. Ohconfucius 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sombrero Galaxy. JPD (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M104 group of galaxies

This object may not exist. A detailed explaination is presented on the Sombrero Galaxy page under "Environment". Basically, some papers using one group identification method have determined that M104 is part of a group (references include the Nearby Galaxy Catalogue by B. Tully, Groups of galaxies within 80 Mpc. II - The catalogue of groups and group members by P. Fouque et al., and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.) whereas other group identification methods have determined that M104 is not (references include General study of group membership. II - Determination of nearby groups by A. Garcia and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.). The creator of the article used this page within the Atlas of the Universe website to create this page but misunderstood the reference, which did not place M104 within a group. The Atlas of the Universe website itself does not definitively state whether M104 belongs in a group; two different pages within it contain contradictory information. (Note that the Atlas of the Universe website uses the Tully, Fouque et al., Garcia, and Giuricin et al. references given above. The original references are more useful than the Atlas of the Universe website.) Since it is unclear as to whether a "M104 group" exists and since this is already discussed thoroughly in the Sombrero Galaxy article, the M104 group of galaxies article should be deleted. George J. Bendo 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting M104 group of galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would be OK, but the other galaxies in the tenuously-identified group should be left unchanged. NGC 4487, NGC 4504, NGC 4802, and UGCA 289 are different objects from the Sombrero Galaxy; redirecting searches on those galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would give the incorrect impression that those galaxies' names are valid names for the Sombrero Galaxy and would thus cause confusion. George J. Bendo 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since those articles don't exist, it shouldn't be a problem. Yomanganitalk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. {{afd}} was not added to the articles on the compilation albums, which makes the deletion of those articles somewhat tenuous - in the past, deletion review has undeleted articles when they were deleted in group nominations but the AfD tag was not added, on the basis that the tag is there so everyone involved in the article can be properly informed. However, the notability of the albums is obviously dependant on the company, therefore deleting the main article and not the sub-articles would be nonsensical, and using PROD or another AfD would be an obvious waste of everyone's time. So I'm going to invoke WP:IAR and delete them anyway. But please remember in future that all articles nominated for deletion must have an {{afd}} tag added, which can then be edited so it points to the group nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Records

Proposed deletion of a small independent record label which appears to fail WP:CORP. Also nominated are the compilation albums it has released :

The label scores 404 unique Ghits out of 46,300 for "Agent records" + label, most of for generic terms, also picked up "Free Agent records", "Double Agent records", "Secret Agent records", "Smooth Agent records" in abundance. Company;s website has no Alexa rank. No independent info available about the outfit per WP:V. Ohconfucius 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disc makers

Consider this may effectively be advertising. Speedy delete removed as was prod. Although improved and has Ghits still reads like PR for company, opinions sought Nigel (Talk) 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (and clean up). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha brothel

Procedural nomination. Was previously tagged as a speedy deletion. I was apprehensive about Googling this one, but it appears to turn up a relevant news report on google about how they gave into Islamist demands. (I'm still not sure how islam and brothels can mix) Might be borderline notable although that would require a keep and cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


I am afraid that this subject simply lacks the reference base to support an encyclopedia article. Thus, delete. Regards —Encephalon 11:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Students

Contested prod about a non-notable blog. MER-C 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. God forbid we start featuring articles on "notable blogs". Pokemons are enough. Bravada, talk - 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staple, Phone, Cheese Flavour Twists

Probable hoax, google turns up 0 hits for the show and the alleged actors. Riley O'Harris, created by the same user, has been speedied already. Cactus.man ✍ 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mylunchmoney.com

Was tagged as speedy A7 but it's not a person or group and prodded for "being not famous enough" which is not a valid deletion criterion. Alexa rank is approx. 1.1 million, but the site appears to have had press attention. They boast as seen/heard on PBS, CNN, etc. on their main site. It might be salvagable, perhaps even for the concept of online lunch money alone. No vote. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yianni Papamanolis

WP:NOT a memorial. This is a sad tale but not in any way unique; also an "inspirational young basketball player" who died aged 11 having suffered from leukaemia for three of those years is not a particularly plausible claim. No sources. Sole claim to notability is a single human interest story on ESPN. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The European Council (TEC)

Probably a hoax. Most of the text of this article is copied from http://www.eurocouncil.org/, which doesn't look like website of serious international organization. I can't find any other reference to this group. When you google "The European Council" TEC – it turns up a lot of results, but TEC means Treaty establishing the European Community, so it seems that all the results refer to the European Council. --Filemon 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think Philemon is clearly excessive in his highly biased "entry-cleansing" zeal: to me, this looks like any other European think-tank albeit an embryonic one, because it was founded quite recently. Plus TEC clearly claims to be "independent and research-oriented" which removes all ambiguity and/or risk of it being confused with an official EU ministry or department. I think we should definitely keep this entry. Maybe Philemon (who seems to be a rightwing Polish irredentist...) doesn't like these guys because their vision of Europe includes Russia?.

I’ve just read some of Filemon’s “contributions”: qualifies as overtly rightwing and nationalist.
Hence the distrust for perceived enemies of Greater Poland such as EU “bureaucrats” and Russian “Cossacks”.
Plus ça change…. --DrVega2


The two user accounts (Solferino and DrVega2) were created today, slightly after user Saint Germain (creator of this article) tried to remove AfD notice from the article. Solferino and DrVega2 removed AfD notice too, making completely false allegations. It is quite obvious that these users are sockpuppets of user Saint-Germain, who tries to defend his hoax. --Filemon 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril August and C.A slider

Strong suspicion of a hoax per lack of Google hits. AfD instead of prod because I want more eyes on it in case this is real. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wutai (Final Fantasy)

Non-notable (even optional) town from Final Fantasy VII with little relevence to the overall storyline. Also contains a fair bit of fanon. Exists in as much detail as really needed on List of Final Fantasy VII locations Made2Fade 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Industries

This horribly formatted article appears to me like an advertisement/press release for this organisation. A Google search for the exact name puts out 647 results, which is very little; ergo, I think the relevance of this organisation for an encyclopaedia is very low. Since its inception, the article had 19 edits, all but two of them by one user, MGBlankenship --Florian Prischl 12:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Drivers To Be Smarter With SpeedAlert Software". AusIndustry. 20 March 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  2. ^ "THE COOL COMPANY AWARDS". Australian Anthill. 1 August 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  3. ^ "Secrets of Australian ICT Innovation Competition". IT Secrets. 10 April 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  4. ^ "successful e-entrepreneurs". MyBusiness. 1 July 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_1&oldid=73215755"