Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 13

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mattisse (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 13 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 12 July 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war

Original research which attempts to get around WP:NPOV policy, by consolidating a list of slogans from various sites, but few of which are verifiably sourced to actual usage. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", points out the following should not be included: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). " As an analogy, one might create a List of phrases which have been applied to President Bush, and claim that because a web site says "President Bush Sucks", and Iraqi TV said "Bush is an idiot" according to a BBC article, it's a legitimate article entry.

I am also nominating the following related page because it has substantially the same problem, and was modeled on the earlier list:

LeflymanTalk 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference with "List of United States military history events" is that it is a timeline of factual, historical events-- and hence, verifiable and neutral. Whereas this (and the similar article also listed for AfD) is a list of expressions promoted by particular group(s), collected from assorted Websites, with limited verifiability-- falling into the same category as "quotations" and "aphorisms". I'd just as soon nominate List of unflattering nicknames for Bill and Hillary Clinton which could likewise be sourced to a Website: [1].
Of similar note is the "What Wikipedia is Not" interdiction against "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".--LeflymanTalk 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier comments:

Wait. You say, "tagged for using Primary sources," and "If no non-primary references can be found, this article will need to go up for deletion." But WP:NOR, now that I look at it, says:
However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
So primary sources are fine. It seems like you're trying to say the various antiwar groups aren't reputable sources. Of course they aren't for a lot of issues - but it seems to me like they are regarding the chants that they use. Again, from WP:NOR:
A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
Emphasis mine. This seems analogous to me. Kalkin 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not a fan of beans; gassy and all that. But if someone really did want to create those pages, I'd be more than happy to put them up for AfD. Red-links are, IMHO, perfectly legitimate ways to demonstrate the non-existence of a subject :) --LeflymanTalk 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but I will point out that I see no problem with the sourcing. Almost any group may be cited for information about themselves; that only becomes a problem when there is reason to think they are lying. A chant sheet is a perfectly good primary source and there is no general rule against primary sources. Unacceptable original research would be for our contributor to say "I heard someone chanting it". A few may be dubiously sourced, but some are very well sourced indeed: the BBC, the Daily Californian (one of the U.S.'s most prominent college newspapers), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 19 July 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 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigress (film)

This article consists of two lines of unsubstantiated rumor and two lines stating there's no confirmation of the rumors. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. CovenantD 13:40, 13 July 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 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Bosworth

Again this weird rip-off of poor Kate Bosworth. See Google matches[2]. Non-existant. Mad Jack 07:26, 13 July 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 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milipants

Delete non-notable undies and the article is the inventor's work [3], and Google (though not the end all be all of otability, only produces 374 hits [4], many of which are wikipedia/wikipedia clones.--Nobunaga24 05:48, 13 July 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 of the discussion was speedily deleted according to CSD A7. --Stormie 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Subercaseaux

Vanity article, 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:07, 12 July 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 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Causes Death

"popular online radio show" with 33 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:16, 12 July 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 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order with Jed The Fish

Radio show. Gets 48 Google hits (when excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Advertisement? Punkmorten 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is quite simple, all radio stations are local, and hence regional. I can't receive Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show (and from it's title I'm probably not missing anything), it is therefore a local programme. Haeleth , pop over to Andromeda and let me know what the local radio is like. Markb 06:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 19:19, 13 July 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 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Adventure Quint

Have you heard of The People's Sprites? It's a web archive of 2D images (sprites). This nomination is for the Megaman fan fiction webcomic found on the People's Sprites here. With 27 Google links for the term "Super Adventure Quint". - Hahnchen 00:13, 13 July 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta noise

Neologism. Very few Ghits, many with repeated text from wikipedia article. Artw 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Satori Son and Artw AdamBiswanger1 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Hello Bigpinkthing. Thanks for the update. If possible, could you please provide some background information on the new Grimes and Torres article that is now included an outside reference source? Has it been published in any way? Thanks again for your time. --Satori Son 14:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Have requested further information from the authors and also found various other uses of the phrase - found lots of blogs using this term casually also - common usage in the field (web 2.0 / metadata) but not citable. In various discussions (going back over a year) on poor meta-data recording (three distinct types of 'meta noise'), 'meta noise' meaning scientifically recorded environmental data that has been corrupted by unwanted physical influence (in a research paper on optics), a metadata tag describing 'noise' (i.e. sound) in addition to the poor use of XML to record small/simple data forms - namely the ratio between XML tag names and the data they contain. I think there's a pretty good case here to keep this article open for further expansion to explain various areas - and that is *only* going on things I found through Google. Eyes hurting now! Bigpinkthing 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMHO there should be a disambig page. The first on the list would link to this article, and the others can just be very brief, non-wikified descriptions for now. Somewhere down the line there might be enough to write the other three articles. --Satori Son 20:28, 15 July 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 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calico Monkey

I prodded this a while ago, but it got unprodded and then expanded upon. Probably by the flash artist himself User:CalicoMonkey. In my original prod, the reason was "3 flash animations, Alexa in the millions and 40 Google hits". Now, it's "6 flash animations, Alexa in the millions and 70 Google hits." But that doesn't make this notable. - Hahnchen 00:20, 13 July 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. Mailer Diablo 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OC Transpo Route 674

Not speedyable via a7, so listed here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
OC Transpo Route 152
OC Transpo Route 602
OC Transpo Route 609
OC Transpo Route 61
OC Transpo Route 62
OC Transpo Route 662
OC Transpo Route 663
OC Transpo Route 683
OC Transpo Route 684

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page Name

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbn press

First hit on Google is to Wikipedia. The 2nd is to E-Bay site. The link at the bottom of page goes to a publisher totally unrelated Missouri Center for the Book Promotional ad for no name publishing? KarenAnn 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Missouri Center for the Book is not "totally unrelated": if you click on the "Publishers" link there, you get a list of Missouri Publishers which includes the FBN Press, and a few details which match some of the ones in this article. It also lists a website address for the press, but the domain given (www.fbnpress.com) does not exist.
As it stands, most of this article -- particularly the details of the firm's history -- is looking very difficult to verify. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. I get 43 Ghits for "FBN Press", and most of those are eBay listings. Two local newspaper articles which quote the owner of FBN, who's also the owner of Eddie's Books, which is the first Ghit I get at the moment. The article is about a local ordinance proposal at the town council. So, no non-trivial articles written by uninvolved persons. Tychocat 11:20, 18 July 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 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvie and Lacey

You can take a look at this BDSM webcomic here. Out of the 58 links on Google for "Savvie and Lacey", the best assertion of notability came from the front page of Something Awful, as an Awful link of the day. Alexa says 700,000 for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:34, 13 July 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 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTURF

Non-notable design company, does not meet WP:CORP; prod and prod2 were removed by creator without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:41, 13 July 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 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy But Dead

This webcomic can be seen here. The search term "Happy but dead" gives around 80 Google links, mostly from blogs or list of webcomic links. None of them are good sources for an article. Alexa figures are 750,000. This is not a notable webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:48, 13 July 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 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patagonia restaurant

This seems to be an advert. Not particularly notable as a restaurant.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:09, 13 July 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 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Zone

This is totally non-notable and parts of it border on nonsensical. Maybe the creator just got home from this venue when he or she wrote the article. Opabinia regalis 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article makes as much sense as can be made from such an absurd place. I'm in Richmond, too, and I think it's a fairly close depiction.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC (no label, no national tours, only assertion is an article accessable only by paid subscription). Delete. --InShaneee 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can confirm that they have a CD (not sure what "label" means in these modern times of self-published artists), and that the article referred to in the Chicago Tribune did appear in the print version of the paper (I saw it the day it came out). They also perform regularly in the Chicago area. Notability is sometimes a judgement call, but given these facts, and that they are one of the few representatives of A Capella Jewish pop, I think them notable enough to not delete. --kfogel 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago is a professional group of a capella musicians with great voices (I'm a speech pathologist with specialty in voice and disorders). Shircago has existed for several years and has recently begun distribution of their CD at a reputable retail store, Tower records. Those who work for Wikipedia obviously have not bought the CD nor realize that Shircago is one of the few worthy young American Jewish pop artists. The type of music they play has been dying, similar to the Shadow Play in China. It is important for the Jewish people to keep that music alive. And Shircago obviously has the right qualifications given that the Jewish Community of Chicago knows the name of the group, and members look forward to attending their concerts - most recently at the Jewish Folk Festival in Chicago. Wikipedia would be making a mistake by deleting this reputable group from their Encyclopedia. Please do NOT DELETE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini-K (talk • contribs)


It isn't a MySpace page. The band has existed for 10 years and is known to audiences in Chicagoland and beyond. The group is a representative of an important up-and-coming expression of religious music in a genre that is accessible to all ages, so the proper course of action is to not delete. --Wolverine94 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Wolverine 94, 4:38pm CDT, 11 Jul 06[reply]

I would be more convinced that this isn't a MySpace page if that huge picture wasn't emblazoned across the top of the article. The picture doesn't add anything of encyclopedic value and probably is why this is even an issue. Delete the picture, save the text. (University of Chicago Alum who has actually seen the group in concert)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.121.167 (talk • contribs)

Why would photographs be inappropriate here, yet appropriate on (say) Barbara Bush's entry? Do the latter add something of "encylopedic value" while the former somehow do not? I think the photo is quite appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, InShaneee 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<:_( Bwithh 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there may be a bit of vanity in the motivation does not automatically disquality this entry. I think the attention this group gets in the Chicagoland area and beyond puts it above your typical small band. They have been featured in one of the largest U.S. newspapers for being part of a newer movement of more ethno-religious-popular music (I read the Chicago Tribune article with interest). I think stumbling on entries like these is what keeps Wikipedia so interesting (although again, would not like to see every 'boy band' included). Since there is more than a little doubt and debate, I would certainly keep this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.56.21 (talk • contribs)
Please see WP:Vanity and review that the article fails WP:Music. If there's a an obvious rule of thumb one can apply , it's that articles about bands written by the members invariably turn out to fail WP:Music, WP:Vanity, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information et al. Please also see Wikipedia is not a democracy and recognise that there are no real rationals advanced here for keeping the article, thus there is no doubt it needs to be deleted. Please do not construe my above comments to indicate that band members cannot work on their bands' page (I myself have edited an article about a co-worker of mine) but just that as an empiricist, I am forced to conclude when a band starts an article about themselves, it turns out the band is unencyclopaedic, the objections of David Hume not withstanding. WilyD 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, but if someone can find another article on them besides the Tribune one, then I'd change it to keep. --PresN 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per David.Mestel. -Tapir Terrific 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, just not notable. "Semi-professional" and "being distributed at Tower Records" translates into "four people's weekend side-project, who are pretty good singers, and who talked the assistant manager at Tower Records into putting a stack of CD's by the register". --Aguerriero (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The world has millions of bands; since nobody has the time or inclination to write articles on all of them, we must necessarily be either selective or biased in our coverage. I hate bias, so I'll choose "selective", and since this band does not meet the arbitrary selection criteria on which we have achieved a broad consensus, I must therefore vote to delete it. (Note how notability does not enter my argument!) — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My interpretation of the articles I found was that this was a band made up of students at the University of Chicago - hence the frequent changes of members, number of members and style. I wish them luck, but elsewhere. --Richhoncho 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The group is not comprised of any students at the University of Chicago and has featured the same membership for four years. There was also an article about the group in the September 2002 edition of the JUF News, and the group was mentioned in another Tribune article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine94 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V-Lancer

Originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers Theme Tune, but should be treated as a separate AfD due to the unrelatedness of the original listing. I am listing it for deletion because of the lack of context and the weak content when compared to the information on the fictional item at Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue#Arsenal. --Ryulong 01:51, 13 July 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 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of the Power Rangers: The Ultimate Rangers

Originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers Theme Tune, but I am listing it separately because of the unrelatedness of the articles' reason for deletion. I am listing it for deletion because the information on the DVD does not show any sort of importance as to why this collection of episodes (of which only three are known) is more notable than other Power Rangers DVDs. Ryulong 01:53, 13 July 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 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carter

Non-notable person (original nomination) - Now the page has been changed and looks even more like a cut and paste of somebody's resume. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Wikify Needs to be verified that he is an executive of "several" large corporations that are claimed, yet not named. Need to verify notability of the "institute" he directs. If done, he is notable. Also need to guage notabiluty of his written "works".

If all this can be done, KEEP If not - Mark me down for Speedy delete as a NN/vanity/hoax. -- Librarianofages 02:42, 13 July 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. Mailer Diablo 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami v. Nebraska

Yet another copyvio. It has been edited but it is clearly taken from here - towards the end look for 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had kicked the extra point, it would have been doubtful if there was a voter in America that wouldn't have voted the Huskers the national champions.' for example. Delete BlueValour 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. The revision to my example sentence is 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had gone for the extra point, Nebraska would have been the Concensus National Championship'. Sorry, but this doesn't wash. BlueValour 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the original creator of this article, and it was a VERY long time ago this article was created. Now that this message was added, I decided to alter virtually every word, to make this completely original. I even changed sentence structures, and tried to make this as close as possible to feature status. I believe that this is an ULTA, ULTRA important article, that is of incredible significance. It is one of the most important College Football articles out there. This article needs to be kept, at any costs. It is too sacred.--Summonmaster13 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Individual game articles are rarely kept unless they contained a very notable single play, which this does not. If this were kept, an out-and-out summary of the game is not encyclopedic and it would have to be trimmed down considerably and have its notability asserted by something other than a point-of-view assertion. ("...was considered one of the greatest games of all time"? By who?) I follow college football and don't see a good reason why this particular game really needs its own article. Plus, I think the full game summary is still intellectual property (copyrighted.) They give warnings about this on the TV broadcasts. Grandmasterka 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Grandmasterka. I appreciate the passion of Summonmaster13 in defending the article, but his belief the game is "too sacred" only points out the POV inherent in its creation. And frankly, what I'm reading in ~ trialsanderrors vote to keep, is to rewrite the article enough that it doesn't exist in its current form or context in any case (remove copyvio, cut down on the breathless tone, rewrite to fit into article on game theory). (apologies to ~ trialsanderrors if I'm reading too much into your nomination.) Tychocat 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - spoilsport :-) this is just what I was doing in my sandbox. More seriously, I am happy with Keep and Rename provided there is no suggestion of introducing a play-by-play account that would leave WP open to a copyvio (unless the editor watched the match and describes the unfolding of the game from his/her personal experience). BlueValour 23:29, 13 July 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 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater Croc vs. Great White Shark

Non-notable episode of a television show. It seems to have been written to add the bit of knowledge of who would win in the match-up. This seems to me to be unencyclopedic TeaDrinker 02:15, 13 July 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 on the subject, but the article is to be dealt with by WP:CP procedures. Mailer Diablo 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State v. Notre Dame, 1966

Another copyvio. It has been edited with sentences moved about a bit but it is clearly taken from here. Look for 'After throttling USC 51-0, Notre Dame won the national championship while Michigan State ended up second.' at the end of a paragraph in both article and source, for example. Delete BlueValour 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. BlueValour 15:49, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Closed and relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#Posteral_hypotension_.E2.86.92_Orthostatic_hypotension.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posteral_hypotension

redirect based on misspelling Moioci 03:10, 13 July 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 with Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter. Mangojuicetalk 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawlish (Auror)

Nonnotable, only makes a brief appearence in the Order of the Phoenix. Could be merged with a new article called Minor Aurors or Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter which the article Williamson was merged with. Treebark (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as separate article--Elendil's Heir 04:30 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 discussion was speedy delete. Joelito (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn

Obvious nonsense Amadis of gaul 03:37, 13 July 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binaca Geetmala 1971

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? nonsense? cruft? There is a whole series of these articles, but I am following guidance at WP:AFD to list one article here first before bundling. --Brian G 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Individual radio program's charts, while interesting, are not encyclopaedic. A link to an offsite repository of these can be linked from the Binaca Geetmala article. GassyGuy 04:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Frankly, I think that this has no business on Wikipedia. But I am worried about systemic bias: do we really think that this would get the axe if this was an american radio show's list? I see a lot of lists concerning Bilboard hits and no one is putting these into question. (although maybe one should) Pascal.Tesson 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This isn't really comparable to Billboard. Billboard is the major national chart of the United States. If this were a national Indian chart, I would vote to keep it. This is more like a chart issued by a local US radio station, though. To be completely fair, however, I will disclose this information: I recently voted to delete a comparable American radio chart summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns for similar reasons, but that one ended up kept, so if you're looking at thisprecedent alone, it'd be a weak keep. I don't know if other ones exist. GassyGuy 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum If I am misrepresenting the BG charts, somebody with a better understanding please correct me. GassyGuy 04:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I would have to change my vote to a very reluctant weak keep because of precedents. I'm baffled that the KROQ countdown would survive an AfD, but thanks for honestly sharing that information. I'll be ready to vote for deletion once we start having more systematic standards against listcruft though. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be strictly accurate, the result on KROQ was No Consensus, not Keep, partially based on some "Keep because we kept it the last time" votes. Just because we made one wrong decision doesn't mean we should repeat it for consistency. Fan-1967 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Gassy Guy let me correct you. Binaca geetmala is NOT a chart issued by a local radio station - rather it is an old program that used to play in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the middle east through radio stations in Sri Lanka and then India. The program played every week from 1952 till mid 1994. The annual charts were a summation of the weekly charts. It was the ONLY countdown show of Hindi film songs in South Asia and the Middle East during its times with many millions of listeners every week - in other words it was definitely comparable to the Billboard charts. The historical significance of everything that I (and others) put up in these pages are immense for the many South Asian heritage readers that you have and will have. And yes, history whether it be musical history as represented here, or movie history or political history or military history is always encyclopaedic and deserve a place on Wikipedia - irrespective of whether we are talking of US history or the history of some other nation. And by the way - it is NOT an indiscriminate collection of nonsense as observed by one very wise (?) commentator here - For everyone's information, the cultural history of some country other than the US does not make it indiscriminate nonsense !!!--Ghoshi 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ghoshi, please do not take offence to my nomination of this article. Quoting from WP:GD - "Please do not take it personally Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on his/her value as a member of the Wikipedia community. When I first saw these articles, there was no context for them, and my lack of knowledge of the proper language honestly made it appear to me as gibberish. I never meant to imply that non-US culture was either indiscriminate or nonsensical, but rather, I could not make any sense of the article when I read it. Respectfully --Brian G 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, however, consider WP:OSTRICH.Hornplease
  • Comment Can you at least add some explanation into these articles? Imagine an ignorant Westerner (me, for example) stumbling onto this article. What is it about? No way to tell. All I see is what looks like a list of foreign words or names. Nothing says it's a list of songs. Nothing tells me what the entries mean. Is "Zindagi Ek Safar" a song title or an artist? What about "Andaaz"? "Shankar-Jaikishan"? It's like some of the articles we see about an episode of a television program that forget to mention what the program is. The article needs to provide context. Fan-1967 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe we can put this group of articles under some suitable Hindi Film Music or Bollywood film music topic - I will search for something like that - I'm sure it exists on Wikipedia. It will take a while for me (and others) to put in all the information and explanations - so please be patient - I promise at the end of our project everything will be well explained. Please do not delete the group of articles - i will keep adding info, and find a suitable topic under which we can place it . Thanks --Ghoshi 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm still iffy on whether the lists themselves have a place here, I do believe that the songs themselves deserve mention as popular songs. Is there any way to incorporate them into the years in music articles (1970 in music et al)? I just read the 1970 one and it has a horrible lack of material about non-Western music. Anyone have any thoughts into possible integration of the songs into articles of that sort? GassyGuy 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment boy... I can't believe I'm actually fighting to keep this article... I understand the argument that just because we made a mistake on the KROQ list does not force us to make the same mistake here but I will say this again: some people put a lot of effort in trying to develop the non-north-american content to Wikipedia and I think that we should think twice about holding different standards for other cultures. Of course, who's going to notice this article being deleted? One or two people if we're lucky. In contrast there will be a few dozens of KROQ listeners ready to step up and defend the "I know this radio station so this should be kept" line. What's the rush here? at least one editor seems to know what these lists are. Let's give it a few months to expand, explain the context and so on. If we conclude that the whole thing is still unverifiable cruft, then I'll be happy to delete. In the meantime I think this deserves a bit of a chance. Pascal.Tesson 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add context. JChap (Talk) 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - You mean you only keep what the masses want? These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Respectfully, I don't think that there is an issue will all the "poor people" that you are concerned with. It appears that the article was a simple copy/paste job and has no edit history to speak of. Of course, more work may have gone into it, but I don't see any evidence of that. At any rate, I'm not sure that this is relevant to the discussion to either keep or delete the article. --Brian G 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Binaca Geetmala used to air on Radio Ceylon. Somewhat like the BBC Home Service at the time, All India Radio would play a very limited amount of popular music. Radio Ceylon was the sole outlet for much popular music, and the Binaca Geetmala its primary countdown show. Top ten lists from the Binaca Geetmala, the programme itself, and its legendary presenter Ameen Sayani are all encyclopaedic articles. At least, they are if Billboard is. Hornplease 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to definite keep as I think there is now sufficient indication that this is waaaaaaay more notable than the KROQ countdown! Of course, there should be an expand-tag added to the whole bunch of articles but they deserve their spot. Pascal.Tesson 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, let me say that I was never in doubt that the Binaca Geetmala itself was notable. Second, based on my understanding of this, this is a year-end chart of a popular music radio show. I'm starting to feel more that we should err on the side of caution and not delete this one, but first I would like to ask - was this a daily countdown? Weekly? Monthly? Currently, we have year-end charts from this show. If this chart is analogous to Billboard, is it possible to format it similar to the Billboard lists? For example, rather than a year-end chart, could there be a chart from each year showing the song that headed Binaca Geetmala's countdown week by week? GassyGuy 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I did do some searching before I entered this nomination, reading more at WP:CSB and WP:OSTRICH have convinced me that perhaps I did not do enough. I'm still not happy with the lists as they are and hope that they would be cleaned up, and I do feel that this generated some good collaborative discussion about that improvement that likely would never have happened if I had simply posted a question to the talk page. At the same time, I must acknowledge that deleting this article is probably not the way to go and am leaning towards withdrawal of this Afd. --Brian G 13:22, 15 July 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 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Catholic Media Office

Delete - WP:NOT Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Brian G 04:36, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy G7 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Tevildo 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brandon

This is an incredibly long vanity page from which my speedy tag was removed by the author. Quite simply, it is the biography of a non-notable acton/musician. AdamBiswanger1 04:39, 13 July 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. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10th World Science Fiction Convention

I'm unable to verify that this convention even happened (what year was it?), and the claim that this is where Sturgeon's Law was formulated does not mesh with our history given in the Sturgeon's Law article, which is more referenced/reliable. So the whole thing seems questionable. Delirium 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: In light of the below, I'd now support this being kept and cleaned up as well. --Delirium 23:47, 14 July 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. Mailer Diablo 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-positive

This page was nominated for AfD in an incorrect way. Fixing the nomination; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be dleeted since i find it to not be noteworthy. At the very least i think it should be merged with Sex or Human Sexuality as a subsection of one of those articles. So delete or merge in my book. what do you think? Qrc2006 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, or merge at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep I'm not sure I see how this article fails notability. There are two books referenced in the article, and it's well-sourced to indicate that this is not a new or unfamiliar concept. The nomination reason doesn't seem grounded in WP policies. Perhaps a discussion in the article's talk page should occur before such an off-the-cuff AfD nomination? -- H·G (words/works) 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HG, with whom I also agree that, for an article that has existed for nearly three years, for which sources are given, and that appears (under any relevant test) facially notable, a discussion at the article's talk page ought likely to be started prior to one's AfDing the article; in the absence of such a discussion, though, one should take pains to explicate why he/she believes the article to be inappropriate for the encyclopedia, lest AfD participants should be left, as I, nonplussed. Joe 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nom appears to be fairly young and fairly new at Wikipedia. My first AfD nomination involved a pretty well-sourced article on a subject who was notable (if not obviously so), and I was reamed appropriately in the AfD discussion. I'm going with AGF here; I pointed out some resources on the user's talk page and encouraged him to read up on WP guidelines in the future. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HG is, to be sure, correct that one ought to assume good faith here; I meant not to suggest that the nominator was acting untowardly but only to apprise him of how best to participate at AfD. To the extent that my comments can be interpreted otherwise, I'm altogether sorry... Joe 19:22, 13 July 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. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity

Just an unsourced and basically abandoned list. Buckner 1986 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 69.159.15.53 has a point. Don't we all need to look deep into our hearts and come to terms with the fact that we're all horrible racists who have a disdain for human life? At first I was just voting "delete" because this list is ridiculous and useless, but then I realized it was just my own prejudices and hatred. Thank you, 69.159.15.53 AdamBiswanger1 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about someone writing a paper on the history of Japanese Prime Ministers, and could include data on who lived to be the oldest? I know people compile statistics on US Presidents like that - who's still alive, who died early, who lived to be an old fart, etc. I can't substantiate this, but I know people study the effects of holding high-stress jobs on one's health. People that hold those offices tend to die younger. Wouldn't an article like this be of use to a person like that? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone actually carried out a study like that of US presidents, the sample size would be so small as to make the study invalid. Even assuming the researcher were to include all 43 presidents, its still using only a sample of 43 to make claims about a very large group of people (people with high stress jobs, which numbers in the millions), and the researcher still have to deal with all the very wide historical differences in healthcare, diet, environment, operational role etc etc etc not to mention individual genetics and so on. The people you know who are compiling these statistics are compiling trivia. About the only practical use I can think of for this kind of information is if it were for a pub quiz or perhaps some kind of number puzzle, both of which are themselves trivial pursuits. Bwithh 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is www.pray4ray.com, but that's going out the window. AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 14 July 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 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBA's 60th Anniversary All-Time Team

Contested PROD produces yet another prolix nom from Joe. The extant version of this article enumerates prospective candidates for a team that, as a simple Googling reveals, does not exist. A previous version to which one might revert exists but simply conflates the text of the lead of NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team with a subsection thereof apropos of a "next ten" players announced by TNT (not under the auspices of the NBA), erroneously, in any case, terming the 60th anniversary team a league-sponsored team akin to the 50th anniversary team). In essence, the article is either (a) altogether redundant to an already-existing article (since the article copies exactly the text of the 50th anniversary article, a merge is unnecessary, and since the text came exclusively from the latter, GFDL concerns do not entail), or, even if expanded, an unnecessary content fork about a topic insufficiently notable as to merit its own article or (b) about a team that plainly does not exist, detailing candidates for a similar venture long since concluded (and undertaken only by television broadcasters); in each case, deletion is the proper disposition. A redirect to the 50th anniversary article is, per WP:R, unneeded and useless (toward which, see [6], [7], [8], [9] , Googlings of permutations of the title returning no relevant hits). Joe 05:25, 13 July 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 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield podcast, Battlefield Podcast

"What's wrong with having this? Other podcasts are listed here as well..."--Peekj 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advertising here, and i created this article with no intention of doing it. This is purely an informative article about the popular podcast among many BF2 fans. Who feels this should be deleted, please post it here so we can see why you would consider such a thing!

- SuperTyphoon— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.179 (talk • contribs)

Haha Angus just because you don't like the article doesn't mean you need to delete it, idiot. because other people enjoy reading it and learning about it. You got a problem with videogame podcasts? Take out your childish anger somewhere else, pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTyphoon (talk • contribs) 22:30, July 17, 2006

No demonstrated notability.--Peta 06:11, 13 July 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 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problempoker.com

Fails WP:CORP. It is an ad for a nn company. Rob 06:24, 13 July 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 San Jose State University. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 09:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Normal School

Repeats information found on both San Jose State University and California State University articles. No notability aside from now being SJSU, and a different name shouldn't be a sole reason to have a separate article. Last paragraph also suggests it is trying to promote the obscure agenda to rename the school. Recommendation to merge any new information in the article to the SJSU and CSU articles, and either delete article or redirect to San Jose State University since it is just a former name of the institution. NeoChaosX 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to San Jose State University. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, merge if necessary. -- H·G (words/works) 08:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I pulled the "merge" recommendation upon checking the articles; there's nothing new in the article in question aside from the paragraphs promoting renaming SJSU (which have no place in Wiki). Still up for deletion or redirect, though. NeoChaosX 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect per nom. Redundant article covered fully under San José State University, so no need to merge. --Satori Son 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. It is not just about "SJSU" or the CSU, it is about the entire California State Normal School system. It contains information and images that are not included in either the SJSU or CSU articles. One of the reasons for creating and maintaining this article is to combat the "San Jose State" historical revisionism that has attempted to wipe the California State Normal School from the pages of history. This article is also being expanded upon on a weekly basis. The main proponent of deleting this article, "NeoChaosX" is a self-avowed "hacker" and recognized Wikipedia vandal who have repeatedly vandalized this article and others, to advance his own anti-CSU political agenda. He deleted this article, and now that that has failed, is attempting to have the article deleted to help suppress accurate California, CSU, SJSU history. Michaelch7 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment All I did previously was try and have the article redirect to San Jose State University, not delete it. The article has redundant information and has nothing notable that would warrant a seperate article. I have nominated the article for those reasons, as well as being advertisement and promotion for your agenda, which is something Wikipedia is not. NeoChaosX 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is interesting to note that the so-called "promotion" in this article, an inaccurate reference to an inaccurate article, was included in this article by someone other than the author (but has now been corrected). Also, a part of the discussion regarding this article, in which NeoChaosX admitted to vandalizing this article, and apologized for it, has now been deleted. This fits the pattern of NeoChaosX's deletion and vandalism of historically accurate entries and articles, simply because they do not comport with his preferred (but historically inaccurate) views. This is exactly the type of "San Jose State" historical inaccuracy and revisionism this California State Normal School article is meant to combat. The stakes are high: historical accuracy and preservation of California State University history in the face of brute "San Jose State" revisionism. Moreover, NeoChaosX spurious claims that this article simply repeats content in the SJSU and CSU articles is self-serving nonsense, as NeoChaosX himself has repeatedly vandalized and removed many accurate references to California State Normal School and California State University history in those articles. Michaelch7 10:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment First, all I did was remove links that promote the renaming campaign, since they were off-topic links in those articles. Second, if you checked the history of article where I admitted to "vandalizing" the page, you would find it was not deleted by me, and in fact was recommended by another user to keep the redirect and to make further additions in the article it was redirected to. I do not know where you get this idea that I am repressing your views; I am simply making changes that I feel (and other agree) that improve the quality of Wikipedia, and to undo changes that do not fit Wikipedia guidelines. NeoChaosX 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment NeoChaosX, you admitted in writing that you deleted the text of this article and redirected it to the SJSU article, which is tantamount to deleting the article. The issue is not whether you are repressing my views, but whether "San Jose State" has and is revising and repressing authentic and accurate California history for its own political purposes, and whether you are helping promote that effort by repeatedly attacking this article, and other contributions to other articles. The record of your actions makes it clear that you are guilty of this. Michaelch7 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • Comment Look, it doesn't matter what you think the purpose of my edits are. We're here to discuss if the content of the article merits being included in Wikipedia, not what the reasons are that I've nominated the article. You've given no reason to keep the article other than your unsubstantiated claims that San Jose State is "repressing history" and repeated personal attacks on me. Furthermore, you have admitted that the article is meant to "combat the "San Jose State" historical revisionism" in your words, which makes it a POV fork, which is not supposed to be on Wikipedia. If you can't come up with a reason to keep the article other than claiming how you're protecting what you believe to be "accurate history", then my argument with you is done. NeoChaosX 03:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SJSU. The institution changed names (several times, as noted in the article). The official and most common name is San Jose State (or San José State). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gentgeen 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Its a nice article about something in history. Irreguardless of the censorship conversation above, could it be better served as a more expanded history section of San José State University? I saved the article for merging into the university article if this doesn't result in keep. Kevin_b_er 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am still uncertain how or why this small advocacy group keeps coming back to this subject. This does not belong in an encyclopedia, but rather on GoState's own seperate webpage that they can finance themselves. Please delete this so that we can keep a neutral point of view as to subjects that are worthy of an encyclopedia, and not be bothered by articles and comments which simply express one small group's hope for a name change to their own instutition? PLEASE DELETE. Streltzer 23:41, 16 July 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 of the discussion was Speedily deleted by User:Fang Aili.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaddadi Papaiah (Telugu Artist)

Direct rip from http://www.hyd-epages.com/entertainment/art-gallery/painter-late-sri-vaddadi-papaiah.html, i.e. violates copyright. Rob 06:59, 13 July 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. Needs a decent cleanup, though. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightrides

Probably copyvio of a non-notable organisations web page.--Peta 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, couldn't find anything on Google that shows this to be copyvio; however, this does read like a press release. I think a little cleanup and a couple of sources would fix this up; looks like a couple of NY-oriented and gay-lifestyle magazines cover the group, so it shouldn't be hard to wrangle. -- H·G (words/works) 08:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup - well, clearly large parts of this article were taken from here and reworded a bit. So yeah, the article definitely needs cleanup--at least proper citation and adherence to copyright policy. -- H·G (words/works) 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my opinion, it doesn't fail notability criteria. Though WP:ORG is still only a proposed guideline, something it shares with existing guidelines like WP:CORP is that organizations that are the subject of multiple non-trivial media articles qualify as notable. There are several to be found on Google[11][12] to say nothing of the print, TV, and radio stories archived on the organization's own website[13]. The uniqueness of the patrol's focus (on safety for "women, transpeople and gender queer individuals") combined with this makes it notable enough that an article on WP isn't unwarranted, as I see it. -- H·G (words/works) 23:29, 13 July 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. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Eppard

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geneticization

nn neologism. --Peta 07:03, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken suid

Bio of unremarkable university administrator (Vice chancellor is as high as he ever rose). Wikipedia is NOT a memorial. Calton | Talk 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but .. - change name to Ken Suid, and completely rewrite it so it does not read like a memorial. This guy is clearly a notable educationalist. It just does not come out of a poorly written article. It needs someone who knows the system better than I do to rewrite it. --Bduke 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, none of this is verifiable with reliable sources (the Princeton link doesn't work, and the UCR link just lists him as a promoter), and WP:NOT a memorial. The Yahoo group dedicated to him has 16 members. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up, found a death notice[15] confirming that he was "vice chancellor of the University of California at Riverside, an assistant U.S. secretary of education, dean of Immaculate Heart College, and a vice president of Bell & Howell." These sound like an awful lot of reasons to keep the article. Still, clean it up to not seem like a bad cross between a resume and a memorial. -- H·G (words/works) 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To elaborate on my "keep" opinion, I think the subject arguably meets WP:BIO--"Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office..."--as Asst US Sec of Ed; this doesn't specify elected office. Not a strong meeting of that criterion (this isn't one of my stronger "keep" votes), but combined with his other roles, enough to skirt by. I tend to think of notability criteria as an extension of WP:NOT--indiscriminate collection of info, and by that measure I feel the subject doesn't fall short. Needs work to be sure, but I think this would be of enough potential interest that it deserves an article here. -- H·G (words/works) 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Ken Suid Dim Sum Yahoo group made me think this was a hoax at first, but he pops up in UCR timelines twice. In any case, 147 G-hits for Ken Suid, most of which aren't about him. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Bio, and WP:NOT a memorial. Dionyseus 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending cleanup per HG - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Bio, not by miles but still fails.--Nick Y. 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assistant Secretary of Education for both Kenedy and Johnson is significant. To remember a country's leader is imeprative to understand that country's evolution. That being said, this article needs a signiicant amount of revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.34.142 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep pending cleanup I am the original author. I've placed this wikipedia as a placeholder until I can dig into more detailed information. Ken Suid had a trememdous impact on education in America, first as Asst. Secretary of Education, then as VP of Bell and Howell, then Trend. His story is interesting and informative on the intersection between academia, government, and private enterprise. For this reason I believe he deserves a wikipedia entry--not for a memorial, but for education. There are few google references to Ken Suid, because he had no knowledge of the internet, not even an email address. I feel he is notable for the following reasons: He held a high position in government, he was instrumental in the rise of the polytechnic institute as an American fixture. --Harperbrad 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who has had "a tremendous impact on education in America" should have left bigger footprints, don't you think? And what, pray tell, are some verifiable examples of his "tremendous impact"? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assistant Secretary of Education, by itself, does not qualify as a national office. There must be hundreds of them at any given time. If verifiable, reliable sources can be provided toward his impact on education, keep. Otherwise, delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Judging by the Education Department's own website[16], Assistant Secretary does not seem to be a particularly high rank, and I think not encyclopedically notable enough for an article for everyone who holds that post. Certainly the Vice-Presidencies of the 3 corporations is not notable enough. Major corporations have many VPs, and they are not generally very powerful. Wikipedia is not an archive for articles about every single moderately important Mandarin or corporate executive or university administrator. Perhaps he did something notable in the CIA? We may never know. Bwithh 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please passes bio guideline per humblegod person is notable Yuckfoo 20:57, 18 July 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 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emporers of Necro-America

Non notable, probable hoax. Spelled the wrong way as well. 2 Ghits in this spelling, 1 with the correct spelling. ProD removed after three days without explanation or changes to the article. Fram 07:59, 13 July 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 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispyz

I speedied the first version of this under CSD A7. The creator has now written an expanded version which I feel still falls under A7 but I'd like to go the extra mile for what looks like a good-faith contribution and get a second opinion. I recommend a delete or a speedy-delete. Haukur 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an explanation as to what we are doing wrong? I'm sure that we can provide the correct information and fix this to your standards. Konnektor 08:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have certain criteria for what subjects are "notable" enough to have articles on them in Wikipedia. For musicians the guideline used is WP:MUSIC, which is a rather tough nut to crack and I'm afraid I don't see anything indicating that Dispyz fulfills it (which is no bad reflection on him). Haukur 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed of the proposed deletion. I want to add more info to this but need some sleep. This article is NOT finished and I would like to keep it open for further updates.

Two questions:

What are we doing wrong?

Why are you guys so quick to delete this page?

We are willing to play by your rules as long as you can let us know exactly what problem you are having with it.

Thanks! Realistik 08:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, nothing is being done "wrong" here. But as Haukur notes above, Wikipedia has certain criteria that subjects should meet. This nomination is to generate discussion as to whether the criteria for musicians (WP:MUSIC) and other WP guidelines have been met; if we feel it hasn't, we encourage the removal of the article. If you feel that verifiable information (see WP:V) can be provided in the article that shows that the subject meets these criteria, now's the time to add it; such info would undoubtedly sway editors into wanting to keep the article. -- H·G (words/works) 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I tagged this with {notability} and {music-importance} earlier to encourage any info that might prove notability; I don't believe anything significant to that effect has been added. I don't know for sure if this meets speedy delete criteria, but I do feel the subject fails to meet WP:MUSIC. -- H·G (words/works) 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all have more info to provide. This is extremely quick to pass judgement. As far as myspace being possible self promotion, anything can be possible self promotion. Tyler plays an extremely big role in local Milwaukee music and we want to share the information. Realistik 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your article asserts notability, so this AfD discussion will last for at least several days, and then an administrator will look at the votes and discussion and decide whether or not to delete the article. Feel free to improve the article between that period. A vote is not permanent and a user can always change his or her vote if new additions to the article warrants it. Dionyseus 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll continue work tomorrow. Any suggestions to keep this thing afloat? Realistik 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just go ahead and delete this. It's an uphill battle and maybe we were just a little too quick to support. Thanks anyways 72.131.42.99 17:51, 13 July 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Lives Beyond.com

Non-notable website with an Alexa ranking below 6,500,000. Was prodded as such but prod removed by author without comment. ~ Matticus78 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep When I logged onto this site I heard a variety on new music. As a fan I like the personal interaction with the artists and fans that this site offers. --Wmcrey 04:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This web site is much needed in a world where music is over played and unoriginal. By searching this site I have found some real talent that is not the same thing I have listened to over and over again on local radio stations. --Poptart82 04:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like the ease of use of this website. I am not computer savvy and if I can understand what to do, then I know they had people like me in mind while developing this website. -- Jackson1 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not a web directory. I'm glad people like the titled website, it just doesn't need a WP article, and ease-of-use and having nice music doesn't create notability. Tychocat 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, this is spam. Moreover, with such a low Alexa ranking, this article is non-notable in itself as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:30, 18 July 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 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head-fi

An internet forum for the headphone enthusiust community. Speedy deleted twice on notability grounds. Article is being re-created despite notability advice given. Bringing to AfD to determine if any notability exists at all. -- Longhair 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is a notable website and community. Alexa ranking of 8,634. [18] Its forum has over 40,000 members, I think that's notable. Dionyseus 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is blatant vanispamcruftisement, list of moderators, pleading against deletion inserted into the article itself (in bold) and all. Number of forum members and Amazon rank, whatever that actually means, are not indicators of notability - multiple verifiable non-trivial third-party coverage is necessary to meet WP:WEB. Amazon.com reviews don't count (they can be written by anyone and are trivial). The closest we come is "Described by HeadRoom Corporation as "the center of the universe for headphone enthusiasts" [19], which doesn't focus on the forum - it's covered in the final paragraph. Even if you consider that non-trivial, we still fail the "multiple" criterion of WP:WEB. I searched on Factiva and found nothing but passing mentions - nothing on which to build an article. The article that came to came closest to covering the forum was from 2002, which wrote a bit about the forum though its focus was on a headphone trade show. It said little more about the forum than that it had 3,000 members - obviously more users have registered since then, but whether it has more regular members is a different matter, and no sources seem to have taken especial notice if they have. The ground rule is - if they're really that notable, someone unrelated to the website will create an article. Oh, and there are no articles linking to this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the website did not create the wiki, its members are editing it... we are still working on it... --Flecom 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to neutral per Xyz below. I won't go for 'keep' as the article does need heavy cleanup to remove the VSCA (and whoever does that may need to be defend the article from its members re-adding unencyclopaedic cruft afterwards), and I can't unequivocally support keeping a hypothetical article that may or may not ever exist. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An average of about 2.2 million posts monthly is quite notable for a forum. [20] Dionyseus 10:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be impressive, but it's not notable. Of course, I haven't the faintest idea whether it's impressive or not - it's not up to us to decide whether that primary data makes something notable, it's up to secondary sources to decide whether that makes the forum sufficiently interesting to tell their paying readers about it. When that happens we can make the decision whether those secondary sources justify inclusion in a tertiary source (us). We aren't at that point yet. WP:CHILL might be of relevance here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I still havent gotten a reasonable explaination as to why this message board is not allowed to exist here while there is an entire section dedicated to message boards on wikipedia, that includes things like something aweful and general mayhem... what makes head-fi different? besides actually serving a purpose of course... --Flecom 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sam. Recury 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please see the recent additions in the external links, as reputable trade publications in the audio industry such as Stereophile have reported on this site and its importance to the resurgance of headphones as a viable alternative to the speakers and home theater markets. Stereophile's Editor-in-Chief came to the past International Head-Fi meet, as well as representatives from Sennheiser, Headroom, Shure, Etymotics, Beyerdynamic, Audio Technica, and many other major manufacturers. Deletion of a site mainly responsible for the rise of this phenomenon (coupled with the rise of the iPod) may do a disservice to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. -this unsigned comment was by 06:34, 13 July 2006 199.67.140.83
  • Keep Alexa ranking of 8634 (which was incorrectly reported above as an "amazon.com" rating), and the external links (which I think were just added) link to two different substantial articles from online magazines regarding this forum. The stereophile one at http://www.stereophile.com/news/042406heaven/ is the most impressive probably, since stereophile itself has a decent alexa ranking and is a paper magazine as well. The head-fi article needs some serious cleanup, of course. --Xyzzyplugh 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed, the cleanup needed will most likely start after people stop throwing everything in they can think of to stave off deletion. There is another stereophile article that captured the direction this community was moving towards prior to its dramatic rise this year, an interesting read on the future of audio as well. http://www.stereophile.com/news/111405headfi/
  • Delete unless major clean-up 35.9.6.175 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Alexa rating is high enough imho, and an article in a magazine pushes it over for me. Clean up and source. --PresN 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, I can understand why it is up for deletion, but there is notability to the community. When I started the wiki, it was just to get the ball rolling for the other more experienced members to begin filling in the holes. The website has pretty high traffic number, is voted top "hi-fi" community by Alexa, and has had an impact in the audiophile community. I'd say it is a keeper and just needs for cleanup. --Footemps 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dionyseus. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Head-Fi has been covered by multiple Stereophile articles as well other independent music forums on the web. I feel that these qualifications meet the notability standard and the article should not be deleted. Needs cleanup. Dept of Alchemy 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like Head-fi also has a long-standing link in the audiophile entry, and specific mention of headphones as part of that definition is included there as well. Browsers of Wikipedia interested in this aspect of being an audiophile now have a wiki entry to learn more about the main community dedicated to it, and in fact the Audiophile entry should incorporate an internal link to Head-fi in the Headphone section once it is accepted as being off deletion-watch. Also, in case a web article by Stereophile is not sufficient, The new Stereophile arrived in the mail today and the actual magazine has a full review, by Wes Phillips, of the AKG K 701s, where he mentions Head-Fi, the New York meet in Nov. 2005, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.140.84 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - barely meets requirements IMO, but it does. Article needs a lot of work. --jkl_sem 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Funny, there are tons of articles of forums which do not exist anymore or too small that no one knows that have ever existed, while the forum which can be found in google by typing 'headphone' and simply click the forth link (which implies 4th? correct if I am wrong) cannot be listed in wiki. I am sorry to say that, but I don't see any single logical reason of being deletion. The forum is recognized by not only by stereophile but also by several hi-fi websites/forums such as AV-forum in UK. Also, because I am a korean, and I can say that head-fi forum is very well known to most of korean hi-fi sites. I can give several proofs if any moderator needs. Regards. (edit: I do agree that it requires some work, but you guys need to be patient.) --Wnmnkh 05:08, 18 July 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 Orkney Islands. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orcadian

Delete Breach of WP:NPOV. This article was created from the original Redirect to the Orkney Islands article, and is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation). Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less. Its status is exactly the same as North Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire or Fife. The creation of this page is part of a campaign by User:Mallimak to utterly divorce Orkney from Scotland. For example, see his persistent attempt to remove Category:Orcadian Wikipedians from Category:Scottish Wikipedians and add it into Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians. He seems to think that he "owns" certain articles (see WP:OWN), including this one. I have tried to re-instate the Redirect to Orkney Islands, but been reverted. I note for example that Glaswegian redirects to Glasgow, and Bostonian is a dab page. There is nothing about the word Orcadian that cannot simply be stated at the Orkney Islands article; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mais oui! 09:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect. "Orcadian" needs to go somewhere, and Orkney Islands is the obvious place. Tevildo 09:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect as per Tevildo. Dionyseus 09:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nomination is an attempt to resolve a content dispute via AFD, so I'm minded to keep the article. POV issues, unless irremediable, are not grounds for deletion in most cases. The same is true of WP:OWN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV-fork, and reinstate redirect. The article appears to treat the culture and history of Orkney, which can be done just as well in the main article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect, at least until such time as the "Orcadian people" section of "Orkney islands" expands to the point of needing to be factored out for summary style reasons, rather than POV-fork-ish ones. Angus is correct, however, this is technically a misapplication of AFD, though one that's tempting to use as an effective means of gauging consensus for turning into a redirect (even though that's not in theory effective). Perhaps an argument for a more active "centralised merge/redirect process" of some sort. Alai 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Orkney. Not really a viable article as it is. I don't doubt there could be enough history or reliable POV to establish a separate article, but there is not even enough content in the main article - come back when the Orkney article is filled up and there are more references. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!

Mais oui! says: “This article ... is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation).” - I am afraid this is simply Mais oui!’s POV. He is not qualified to make such claims until he has read up a bit on Orkney (I suggest some books to get him started on the Orcadian discussion page), or maybe lived here for a while. The concept and the article do not fit in with his prejudices and so he is determined to have the article removed. He has already tried removing the page without any debate (vandalism).

This article has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. As Badgerpatrol points out, Cockney and Geordie do not redirect to London or Newcastle. (Note that I am not the first to introduce the term “Orcadian” to Wikipedia, there was already a very brief list of “Some well-known Orcadians” on the Orkney Islands page before I started editing. - It might be sensible to expand this list, as I have added a lot more to Wikipedia in the meantime, and move it into the "Orcadian" article.)

I never wanted to get into a dispute with Mais oui! I know there is the warning: “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it“, but I never expected such pettiness or such prejudice. I have not been the only target, judging by the comment in the “Orkney people stub” debate:

” Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)”[reply]

Mais oui!’s statement: “Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less.” is a clear demonstration of his prejudice. In international law there is still doubt over the status of the islands, which is why John D. Mackay’s letter provoked the response it did. (Mais oui! insists on turning the patriotic Orcadian, John D. Mackay into a “Scottish man of letters”, I note.) The Scandinavians still see Orkney and Shetland as forming a part of Scandinavia (an historic and cultural designation rather than a political one), which is why they will allow the coats of arms of Orcadians and Shetlanders to be placed in the Skandinavisk Vapenrulla, a right they do not extend to any of the other 30 council areas of Scotland. The unofficial flag of Orkney (which you see flying all over the islands) is a Scandinavian cross based on that of the Kalmar Union of which Orkney was a part. There is a lot more to Orkney than Mais oui! will admit, or maybe there is lot more to Orkney than he knows - which is all the more reason to have this information in Wikipedia!

Is Wikipedia going to allow itself to be limited by Mais oui!’s prejudices? I hope not.

Mallimak 08:59, 14 July 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 of the discussion was speedily deleted by FayssalF as CSD A7. DarthVader 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Yerubandi

Not Notable, more of a user page, google yielded just a few autobiographic pages JuanPDP 09:10, 13 July 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 after a 3rd party rewrite. Ryanjunk 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Acosta

This seems to be a vanity page -article has only been edited by one person who, I believe, is likely Joe Acosta himself. Ladybirdintheuk 09:52, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy G1 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in the Pantry

I think it's a hoax. Tinlinkin 10:20, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy G4 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Phase

Recreated version of a deleted page, rewritten as another advertisement. Not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:25, 13 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Paisant

Hoax as with Trapped in the Pantry --Tinlinkin 10:26, 13 July 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. For the template, this way please. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public transport connecting to The Hague

Article contains no notable information in addition to Railway stations in the Netherlands and Train routes in the Netherlands . It is cluttered with a transcluded template, that only used for this article (Template:Railway stations in The Hague) and I also propose that for deletion.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:00, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy Deleted by Woohookitty (Eluchil404 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ivonne Hernandez

Canadian fiddler that I don't believe passes WP:MUSIC. No entry on allmusic.com, CD not avaible, limited touring seems to be mostly clubs [23] and [24]. Delete unless, I've missed something obvious. Eluchil404 11:01, 13 July 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, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine

I'm pretty sure we don't need a page on every book. I've never heard of this one either. Mithridates 11:27, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy Deleted (CSD G7) by Fang Aili. --(blue520 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Em-chan

Attack page, twice tagged as such, tag removed by author. Even if it were not an attack page, subject is non-notable. Speedy delete A6. --Huon 11:36, 13 July 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 per A7; no "remotely plausible" assertion of notability was present. Xoloz 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris mercer

Can't find evidence of notability on Yahoo or Google; probably vanity; even title of proper name is wrong Tinlinkin 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a hoax. Tinlinkin 03:03, 17 July 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 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Craig H. Yorke Jr.

Does not meet WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dr. Craig H. Yorke Jr." produces only 5 results. Schzmo 11:55, 13 July 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.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Global Warming

Blatant POV and OR. NawlinWiki 12:03, 13 July 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 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Crouse

This artist has no album releases, no tours, etc. - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 12:04, 13 July 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJILE

AJILE was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-13. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE/2006-07-13.

Non notable JS thingy Computerjoe's talk 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some people find it important, but that does not mean the article is notable enough to be kept. --Sleepyhead 08:18, 22 August 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. – Will (message me!) 08:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Via Musica

Not notable music retailer, just advertisement for a company. Also overcategorized. Jklamo 12:29, 13 July 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 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Guito Hassan

Hoax. If he's a renowned international criminal, why is he unknown to Google and Google News? Pablo Hassan returns some hits on Google, but they reinforce my belief that this guy is just a forum user... or a character from Human Traffic. And c'mon, look at the references. From UrbanDictionary: "All round top geezer. The kind of bloke you'd like to buy a pint!" KingTT 12:44, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnesians (Greek)

This page was reprodded despite having been previously deprodded, so I'm making it into an AfD. The prod reason was:Unmotivated and poorly named fork of Peloponnese main article, contains no info that isn't already there; unnecessary disambig addition "Greek" makes it unsuitable as redirect. See Peloponnesians, which is a useful dab. Procedural nomination, no vote. --ais523 12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HelpServer

Fails WP:CORP. goofyheadedpunk 19:59, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy A7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knockin Boots

This article is a spam page for an obscure bandSpylab 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab[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. Ryanjunk 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letter kills

Doesn't really outline anything from Wikipedia:Notability_(music). I can't find any sources whatsoever on their tours, their whereabouts, their charted hits or anything. Feel free to dispute. --Fractions 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination? This is a legitimate listing, because the article does not establish any notability per WP:BAND. Google hits and being on All Music Guide are not criteria. A national tour is a criterion - so why don't you edit the article to include that information and establish notability? Then, I'll reconsider my "vote". --Aguerriero (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). Anything less than a Keep at this point would be leaving one's head in the sand. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added those two refs to the article. --Joelmills 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like I've been proved wrong! :). Good finds. --Fractions 03:36, 14 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediasurface

Fails WP:CORP. Moreover, it feels kind of like an advertisement. goofyheadedpunk 20:36, 12 July 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 09:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Europe

The consensus on the talk page is that this is merely a political manifesto and the article has been created to bump the search ranking of the group concerned. --Red King 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Red King 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a more balanced article or stronger claim to notability is made. Brisvegas 08:34, 13 July 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Alegre Skinheads

The group in this article doesn't seem noteworthy enough to warrant an article, and there is no citation showing the claims are true. Spylab 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)spylab[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 RENAME to Rodwell Munyenyembe and KEEP. Ryanjunk 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodwel Munyenyembe

Unless we plan on maintaining an article for each person on the planet I think this article is a good candidate for deletion. A quick googling brought up little, though that is a rough indicator of worth. Anyway, it needs work if it's not to be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changing my vote to keep. It does seem that he was at least a member in March 2004 [28].
  • Strong Keep. If you google Rodwell Munyenyembe instead of Rodwell, you will find that he is described as "Speaker of Parliament Rodwell Munyenyembe" [29]. It seems he died a little over a year ago. It needs to be updated, not deleted.--Thomas.macmillan 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I believe this article meets the guidelines of WP:BIO, specifically: "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Article just needs more work. --Satori Son 16:14, 13 July 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 Eluchil404 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresa

Reprodded deprod, changing to AfD. The reason given was WP:WINAD, but I'm not sure this applies here. Procedural nomination; but given the content of the article, I'm voting neutral, not no vote. --ais523 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. This article only defines this slang term, both go against the aforementioned policy. --Porqin 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, one way to fix a mis-placed dictionary article is to turn it from a dictionary article about a word into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/event/thing. I've started this. Research shows that there is a cultural stereotype in Mexico that is commonly known as "fresa". But it is proving difficult to find sources that discuss it any more than superficially. (There are plenty of "fresas say 'o sea' all of the time!" "no they don't!" "yes they do!" arguments on discussion fora, but those aren't sources.) Like chav, this article requires strict sourcing to prevent the introduction of original research. This was an exceedingly bad start to an article. Weak keep. Uncle G 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think we need to support an English language article on an alleged Mexican slang word that has no article in the Spanish language Wikipedia. If Spanish language speakers don't find such an article notable, why should we? Rklawton 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a poor argument given that the article simply might not have been written in the Spanish language Wikipedia yet. The Spanish language Wikipedia has roughly 1/10th the number of articles of the English language one, and 1/10th the number of editors. To argue that Spanish language speakers don't find the subject notable, one has to look at the world at large rather than at Wikipedia (as is always the case with notability). There is no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject. I mentioned above that one can find them arguing about it, in Mexican Spanish, on discussion fora. Uncle G 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's leave the POV of whether or not my argument is "poor" out of the discussion. If you don't like the argument, just say why. Now, to address your "why"... If they're actively debating the article then 1/10th resources aren't an issue for this particular article. Posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it is like saying to them "hey, we know your language better than you do." Let the Spanish language speakers sort things out first in their language. If they decide it's a worthy article, only then should it appear in other languages. Rklawton 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A poor argument is a poor argument. And the argment that we should have no article because the Spanish Wikipedia has no article is a poor argument, plain and simple, for the reasons stated. Your additional argument, about "posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it" is irrelevant, simply because it bears no relation whatsoever to what is happening here. There is no such debate. The article is being debated here. Finally: Waiting for the Spanish Wikipedia to decide whether articles are worthy before writing about the subjects in the English Wikipedia is a very bizarre approach to constructing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A "poor argument" is a personal judgment - and it runs counter to WP:CIVIL (see Examples section). I based my recommendation on your comment that there was "no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject." For the purposes of this AfD, I simply propose waiting for the experts to sort out what's what before creating an English language article about Spanish language slang. By way of illustration, I would find it strange if someone wrote an article in the Finnish Wikipedia about a debatable English-language slang word not found in our own version. Rklawton 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree. I think it's OK to say that an argument is "good" or "poor". There is, admittedly, a fine line between arguing that an argument is "poor" and making a personal attack on the person making the argument. Nonetheless, I would suggest that both sides "chill out" and focus on the arguments rather than characterizing whether an argument is "poor" or not. --Richard 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent original research unless suitable citations are found. WilyD 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of fact, I was revisiting this discussion with this edit to point out that I had finally found a few for some parts of the article. They are written by Spanish language speakers. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: now it has cultural discussion and sources for some of its claims, it is clearly an acceptable article. The question of sourcing or deleting the claims that remain uncited is one for the article talk page, not AfD. — Haeleth Talk 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Es.wiki is only 1/10 of the size of En.wiki so lot's of perfectly valid articles don't yet exist there. Given the good work that's been put into this article let's keep it. There are lots of Google hits even if few good ones. Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable term in Mexico on the same level as chilango, for instance, or even dandy in England back on the day. It needs to be more thoroughly sourced, but that is no reason for deletion. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:WINAD is not applicable as the article has encyclopedic information. I also agree with the preceding arguments in favor of keeping this article. --Richard 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relatively common concept, and rather important in understanding Mexican social dynamics. JZ 05:37, 17 July 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 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest Results 2005-06

Wikipedia is not a results service. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 13 July 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 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Strength Training

Spamvertising for nonnotable weight training system; I lost count of all the (r)'s and (TM)s. NawlinWiki 13:56, 13 July 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 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Heppell

Non-notable bio; vanity. Page created by subject himself! Not notable enough to have an encyclopædia entry. Delete. EuroSong talk 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is surely a WP:Vanity entry, and he cites his own personal website in which he quoted "To be honest, I've completely lost track of where much of my stuff is on the Internet - conference slides, videos, transcripts, podcasts, debates...". However, he appears to have won some sort of (notable?) award. --Porqin 14:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Poorly written vanity. A professor? (of what, where?). Advises a string of governments? (which ones?). Won an award? (yes, the RTS Judges’ Award--a bit lacking in notability itself, but it gets a mention here, which is basically a press release, not an independent source.) Seems like an ordinary teacher with a vanity project. -- Slowmover 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and, as proposed, WP:PROF. A search on Google News produces exactly 2 hits: 1 is an article written by him last month, and 1 where he gets a very brief mention in Cayman News Net Online , apparently for some consulting he did last month for the Cayman Islands school system. The WP article here is both vanity and an advertisement. If he truly is "frequently found in the world's media", we need to see the links, otherwise that claim to notability fails WP:Verifiability. --Satori Son 01:51, 14 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary DVR

Google's 827 exact results with this term are not sufficient enough for its WP entry. There is no real intro to the article either. Non-notable tech jargon, it seems. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article contains very jumbled information, with a lack of purpose, that shouldn't have its own article. --Porqin 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As it stands, very confusing, badly written. Doesn't really define its subject (software? hardware?). But if someone knows the topic, perhaps it could be made usable. Should be linked from or merged with Forensic video, which it refers to. -- Slowmover 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am new to WP and I wrote the article. Can you give me more time to improve it and clarify? I work in the industry and can seek others who can help shape it, but I need to know how much time is allowed. Perhaps it just needs a better title.--Hartzz 19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You typically have 5 days from the AfD date, so until 18 July 2006. This looks like a borderline call to me, so you can probably save it. You really need some links to published articles that use this term, otherwise it probably violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I'll try to visit back and "cast" my opinion after your edits. Good luck. --Satori Son 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hartzz did flesh out the article more and it does seem to be "technological notable". I would add a source tag and give the article more life. Agne27 15:40, 18 July 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. . – Will (message me!) 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lupo Sinclair

This article MUST NOT be deleted. It was placed there by a member of the historical fencing community, is referenced by members thereof, and is linked to several other articles. If there are any grounds for deletion at all, it is that this page has become a political quagmire. It should instead be locked. This "mob editorial" policy is the reason why academics such as myself refuse to allow Wikipedia as any sort of reputable source.

-Ken Mondschein

A non-notable fencer who, excluding a few mirrors, only has around 200+ exact hits on Google, and whose page was started by an IP user. Even more pitiful, it's been there since last September... And there we go—one of so many reasons why this Wikipedia has only recently given registered users the power to create new pages. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it would be interesting to know the exact names of those who are so continuously attacking this well respected Maestro. He has been teaching to almost all researchers in the USA and America, but some (few of them, but very aggressive on the Net) have started to mob him since he clearly espressed some disagreement with them. Non one can offer REAl certification of Mastership in Tradition of Fencing. But his skill is repeatedly confirmed by several great personalities such as Maestro Ramon Martinez, who stated that he (Andrea) "clearly teaches what is the real tradition of fencing".

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has been teaching to almost all the students and researchers of Historical Fencing in the USA and Europe. Removing the article about him should mean that most of many other articles about others should be deleted.

Fact: he has created the biggest Federation for historical Fencing in the world. The standards of the Federation he created are followed and seen as an example from other organisations such as the Spanish Fed and the British one. To me, this is enough to give relevance to Andrea lupo Sinclair here on Wikipedia. [No, this is not correct. ARMA is the largest historical fencing federation in the world, and it can be easily verified.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has founded the IMAF that collects some of the most relevant teachers in world. This is another fact of relevance. [How many teachers does IMAF number right now? According to the IMAF website, not more than ten, only a few of whom teach fencing]

Fact: he has been mobbed for three years by some of the very aggressive self promoting "researchers" in the USA because the knowledge of this Maestro was obscuring their own one. [This is debatable, and therefore a non-fact]

Fact: he has been independent from political games, and this can be absolutely proved. That is why some of the big "politicians" in fencing hates him so much, at the point that have no shame in attacking he who has been the only one to create a true independent federation in Italy. [Nobody hates anyone. Again, this is about credentials. These either exist or not.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair still travels in the USA but not at the same events of other researchers or so called ones. All the IMAF has decided to change a bit its policy of public presence. But it is deeply unfair to use this as an evidence of other issues. [And this is from someone uninterested in politics. Ah.]

Others informations could be given by Maestro Ramon Martinez. Arzach 2

  • Delete this also appears to be an attack page. Almost all the content is to question Mr. Sinclair's credentials. --DarkAudit 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have reverted to the version as of July 11, which is free of personal attacks, per WP:LIVING. It is badly in need of sources, though. Kimchi.sg 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gentlemen; this individual has a worrisome propensity for free-wheeling claims that he invariably can't back up. Just take a cursory look at his bio page on his website. There's no mention of how he obtained his title. One would think that would be the first thing a Fencing Master would mention, no? But he surely "attended the best high-school," "designed the best blade" and taught "most researchers and fencers in Europe and the US." Right. A passing mention to the HUGE controversy this guy's created around his name by spouting off these enormities (which is why he no longer shows his face at general US fencing events) has to be included, or else Wiki is just a vehicle for unchecked self-promotion. A personal attack would be: he's a fraud. An objective statement, instead: critics say he hasn't produced his credentials, which is what the overwhelming majority of historical fencers in the US are asking themselves. If you think this latest version is imperfect, please let me know and I'll be glad to tone it down further or add any reference you consider appropriate. Cheers. Nuages2000.
  • Strong Keep - Cheers. Trunk 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was not able to find any information published by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:V) that would validate notability under WP:BIO. If anyone finds differently, please provide links. --Satori Son 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Mondschein, there is no mob editorial. Questioning the credentials of someone who claims them is not a personal attack. Questioning the motives of those who pose such a simple question, on the other hand, is. As for locking an entry, well. So I can post an entry calling myself the father of contemporary Psychology, and as soon as someone asks for my credentials, I'd have one of my minions cry for the entry to be locked? Not deleted, mind you, but locked? And then cry wolf about Wikipedia's lack of academic credibility?

That's a bit too convenient, don't you think? So let's each of us put up some romanticized fiction about ourselves, lock the entries when somebody raises some predictable questions, and cast aspersions on those meanies who do the asking.

So, for the 1000th time: where's this great Maestro's official certificate? If this cannot be produced, where's the "notability" about this individual, as someone keeps asking? Again, let's all put up a higly embellished page about ourselves. Go Wiki!

(Nuages 2000)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollonfriday

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Procedural nomination; someone tried to db-bio this, but it's a website and so doesn't fit. No vote. --ais523 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I did try that, but you are correct. The article reads like a "behind the scenes" of the forums right now, and does not give any reason as to why it is notable. I can correct myself when I appear to be wrong and I wish to change my vote to Keep. Doing research the site indeed does appear to be notable, however the childish attacks and unencyclopedic information needs to be removed. Wildthing61476 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be just another website. Alexa ranking 390,000. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as part of it is definitely an attack on one of the forum's admins. This otherwise reads as an advertisement for the fourms. Wikipedia is neither a web directory nor free ad space. --DarkAudit 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speediest Delete This wikipedia entry should be deleted as it's not nearly as funny as it used to be. Lollers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Shaftington (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete It clearly is not "just another website" but one with a cultural reach far beyond it's intended readership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal s (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • put the electrodes on its danglage and send the poor lil minge to heaven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying Wang (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • maybe it should be saved but first describe looks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Shaftington (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Duplicate vote, then deleted by caster. --ais523 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The editors of the above 4 votes have only edited the article and this AfD. --ais523 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The entry itself is worthy of inclusion due to its growing significance and influence. It is widely referenced within the legal press, and represents a refreshing and rapidly developing new facade to the legal scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.25.137 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yet the article does not refer to any reference other than a Times website article. If these references could be cited, the article would be more likely to stay. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page has now been blanked by the author. Wildthing61476 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - this website is a unique insight into the closed comminity of lawyers. It provides topical and interesting information on current thinking in law and the culture of law offices in the uk _ Longtermlurker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.133.69.162 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete - 'tis a cultural phenomenon, albeit amongst Solicitors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismike (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved this vote from the talk page. --ais523 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it a vote or not a vote?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdelphinus (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a discussion, in that keep/deletes aren't added up to determine whether it gets deleted. Comments with keep or delete bolded in them are often, slightly incorrectly, referred to as votes as a form of shorthand. --ais523 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely non-notable website - no media coverage, few users, et al. WilyD 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed my accidental duplicate vote. - Thanks, Ais523 WilyD 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking duplicate presumably added by mistake in the midst of many edit conflicts. --ais523 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article would be significantly improved by a rewrite (perhaps removing a lot of the chafe), and most certainly needs better citing of referals by primary sources. The website certainly is not a vanity one, which also leans in it's favour. I say keep for now, and if in a few weeks no references have been cited, then put up for deletion again. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Much like Dilbert, RollOnFriday began as a humorous parody of a phenomenon and has since become part of the phenomenon itself. It is one of the few sources of an unbiased view of a profession often presented as staid and old-fashioned and surely is deserving of a Wikipedia page. Partnerfrance 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can someone say there is no media coverage when media coveraged is linked to within the account of the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It mentions in the article that it HAS been mentioned in the press on a number of occasions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdelphinus (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Either wiki is a knoweldge database or it isn't. Rollonfriday is a significant element of lawyer culture and should be acknowleged as such.--81.144.180.200 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Clyde[reply]
  • Keep - Lord does it need some cleaning, but the article legitimizes it, and it is, apparantly, a big part of British Lawyer culture. --PresN 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After all that {{unsigned2}} tagging, it's time to vote. This seems to satisfy the notability criteria guideline WP:WEB 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself (see the references added to the article), it's inherently verifiable, and there don't seem to be any other deletion-worthy problems. (It needs cleanup, but that isn't a reason for deletion). --ais523 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:31, 14 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete all as nonsense. The bits about "2005 gummy worm squeeze" and "binary identification pneumatic" did it for me. Kimchi.sg 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's markets

Also nominating:

Blog that does not appear to be widely noted[31][32]. Articles slip into semi-nonsense ("playboy savant", "Gummy Worm squeeze", "ultimate metaphor for...genius and power", financial world adopted his "masterfully engineered linguistical system", ...). Weregerbil 15:08, 13 July 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 pwn3d. Mailer Diablo 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident owned

Fails: WP:SPAM Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to start his own internet meme. Fails: WP:WEB - 0 Google hits for ("Resident Owned" + pablo83). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:14, 13 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy G7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam_Belmar

I am an intern for ABC News. Adam Belmar is my senior producer and we created the page as a joke. The information in the page was taken from ABC News.com and was not changed at all. Adam Belmar requested that this page be removed and I am following his instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshaffer (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Keep. Mostly Rainy 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive flops

The article contains inherent POV, as there are no fixed standards for determining an "automotive flop". As can be seen in the article's history and discussion page, it provokes perpetual conflicts, and is used by some people as a means of publicizing their POVs on selected cars or brands. It is evaluatory in its nature, and Wikipedia's main task is not to evaluate, but to provide information. I do not see why would any user seek for such information on WP, and if found, this article can only compromise WP's status as a good source of impartial information. Bravada, talk - 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason why this article should be deleted, and I watch the page, and if some users, like Wairthu, use the page to just push POV, then I revert it. end of story. Karrmann 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it makes for interesting commentary. The individual articles linked from the page should have enough information that substantiates the concept of a "flop", though. The talk page for the list should contain some objective definition of what it means to be a flop, such as a short production run, lower than expected sales, or widespread criticism (like "Unsafe at Any Speed"). The Plymouth Prowler, for example, doesn't qualify for this list because it was intended to be a limited-production vehicle -- as far as I can tell, anyway. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the article sure made for some interesting discussions there is no reference for what a sales flop is. While I realize that this is vague concept, much like the term flagship, a policy similay to that found on the List of flagship vehicles by manufacturer, should be instituted here- one source for every vehicle listed as a flop. POV is not too strong, as Karrman stated, it is ususally removed quickly. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - let me reiterate that POV is INHERENT in such listings, and as we can see in the above comments even, it will be perpetually causing discussions and not reach a stable, satisfactory form. Wikipedia is also not a place to provide "interesting commentaries", encyclopedias do not provide these, but facts and information. Bravada, talk - 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I realize what you're trying to say, but rather than deleting the article for fear of wrongful inclusions in the list, lets find a way to better define "flop". Nobody is going to put Toyota Camry as an entry (the best selling car of the last decade in the US), and we won't have to worry about any excessively inappropriate inclusions. Also, if an entry seems to be not quite a flop, or questionable, the user simply has to click on it and more information about the car's sales failure can be given.
    It is a question of only allowing mathematically accurate and precise definitions, vs. allowing general consensus and obvious but unprovable fact. AdamBiswanger1 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "obvious but unprovable facts" are a nicely-sounding catchphrase that can serve as a loophole for introducing non-encylopedic topics and pseudo-information, while avoiding proper definitions and referencing. Sometimes a definition of a subject is vague, and this is then discussed by a given article, but the definition of a "automotive flop" is inherently subjective and dependent on the peculiar POV of a given person - there can be as many definitions as users here. But that's not the main point.
The main point is that lists in general should only be created if they are really needed in WP for information/navigation purposes, and are too big or cumbersome to be included as parts of an article or a template. For example, one would expect an encyclopedia to contain a full list of Chinese Emperors, with reign years, date of birth/death, dynasty etc. preferably, but it would be far too big to be included in the Emperor of China article. Therefore, some factual information got moved to a separate list/table.
But, as you can read here, lists are not a place to make value judgements. The WP:LIST guideline refers to people and organizations, but I believe making value judgements of places or items would also be quite improper - would you find a "list of cities which are really terrible" or "list of disgusting jewellery items" proper? This list is in fact very similar to those examples.
This could be remedied by devising a good definition and change the title to a non-judgemental one, like "List of automobile models that sold worse than manufacturers' sales projections", but would it be anything really necessary in an encyclopedia? Wouldn't it be better to keep such lists in car-related websites, where one does not have to mind NPOV, and which are in general directed at car buffs and not the general population of Internet users?
And if you believe a given vehicle WAS a flop, and have a good rationale for such statement, why not just include that in the article and not cause tensions by putting it on a "list"? Bravada, talk - 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a 3 paragraph response and then lost it in an edit conflict... I'll rewrite it in a while AdamBiswanger1 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a given that some car models will flop for one reason or another. And it's also a given that deciding on what is or isn't a flop is definitely POV. The POV here, however, is not from the article editors, but rather the automotive press, the manufacturers, and the general public. I found the article through the AfD, and it's a fascinating read on all the ways the automobile industry has mucked thigs up over the years. --DarkAudit 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DarkAudit is absoutely right, the POV here comes from the Auto industry not the users. The only problem is lack of referencing. Upon the appearances of references (hey, that ryhmes! ;-) I will change my vote to keep as well. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does the auto industry generate POV here? Have you ever read an official GM press release stating "Cadillac Cimarron is a flop"? Flop is a term expressing value judgement, the inclusion of a vehicle in this list is purely a POV action on the user's side. Bravada, talk - 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The press is POV because they label these vehicles, "flops" through various publications. Signaturebrendel 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) The press is not industry 2) The press is POV and this is why WP does not contain everything that the press writes, and the editors should be very careful and considerate when citing the media, and especially should make sure they separated opinion from factual information. Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's not a value judgment as in a page called "List of really, really good authors" or "great recipes". It's a value judgment of common sense, and although I know that some people don't have it, the definition of a "flop" is so obvious and yet intangible that we cannot let a need for an exact definitions be the downfall of this article. In addition, each entry is explained, so we can let the reader decide. AdamBiswanger1 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you laugh if I say that the above statement is POV? Bravada, talk - 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing indefinable with POV. See Grey area. Other than that, I'm not sure why you would consider it POV. AdamBiswanger1 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you've got something that's indefinable and within a "grey area", then trying to categorize items definitely according to that criterium is POV. You put something on the list because your "common sense" suggests you that it is a flop. Still, some other person might not think of it as flop, and as being a flop is not defined well and a "grey area", you can both be right in your own perception and there is no neutral and fixed criteria to decide who is right. Therefore, putting or deleting anything on the list is inherently POV.
As concerns "we can let the reader decide", the reader is browsing through an encyclopedia not really thinking all the time whether the information contained here is true or not, so this list should contain a disclaimer like

This list is made up of some vehicles that some Wikipedia editors considered flops, and also doesn't contain some vehicles that some Wikipedia editors do not consider flops or didn't even hear of. It is not definitive or complete, and it is also up to you to browse through the descriptions and references and decide on your own whether a vehicle on the list is a flop to you or not.

If this does not prove how nonsensical this whole thing is, then what would? Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a sidenote, the reference you just added to the section on "Eagle" pertains to the Premier as lacking sales success, not the brand. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 19 July 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, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchal marriage

Non-standard usage. Consists entirely of factual inaccuracies and non-neutral POV. Certainly, patriarchal marriage is a commonly used phrase, but to say that it is refers simply to couples who call themselves "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" instead of "Ms. and Mr. Jane Doe", as this article seems to suggest, is absurdly inadequate. I suppose it's conceivable that a good article with this name could exist in the future, but the current content is all junk. (Taken along with its sister article Matriarchal marriage, which I will nominate shortly, it is also—and I say this as a feminist—sexist bullshit, but don't get me started.) —Caesura(t) 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know I took about 15 minutes trying to come up with an accurate definition, but I couldn't because all internet pages that discuss patriarchal marriage discuss it as if the reader is intimately familiar with the concept. Perhaps someone else can define it and save the article? AdamBiswanger1 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to a new article being created someday that isn't inherently POV and original research as this one is. In the current article, there is not one sentence that is without a biased statement or argument. Agent 86 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - You mean you only keep what the masses want? These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: User has 16 Wikipedia edits, of which 14 are AfD-related. User has voted "keep" on every AfD discussion s/he has participated in, except the one s/he started, and her/his reasons are copied and pasted from one AfD discussion to another. —Caesura(t) 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom PLUS "no original research" Rklawton 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - problems with OR and verifiability, bias, misleading inaccuracy. --HJMG 07:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... this is really trying hard to pass as a legitimate article, but it's extremely WP:OR and WP:POV with no semblance of WP:RS. For over 2000 years, patriarchal marriages were the only way to go. Now, people are becoming more aware of matriarchal marriages and this type of marriage is becoming extinct. What? Sez who? --Kinu t/c 20:59, 18 July 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 Rebel without a cause. – Will (message me!) 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Without A Cause curse

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

The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEMAYA

Article is a dictionary definition, and is non-encyclopedic in content. Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this term doesn't seem to be in wide use, so probably wouldn't be accepted at Wiktionary. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 15:34, 13 July 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 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchal marriage

Current text is irreparably non-neutral and generally factually inaccurate. It isn't quite as wildly inaccurate as Patriarchal marriage (see my AFD for that), but has the same POV problems. I could certainly see a really good article on matriarchal marriage existing in the future (say, describing the marital customs of matriarchal societies), but none of the current text is worth keeping. —Caesura(t) 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are some key POV issues in the opening paragraph, but the items under "Reasons" seem to be unverified, opinion, or speculation. The crystal ball gazing doesn't help. Agent 86 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom PLUS "no original research" Rklawton 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. People need to be informed about matriarchal marriage as a growing trend in Western civilization GVnayR 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... WP:OR, WP:POV, and lack of WP:RS. The "example" provided is laughable as well. Maybe people need to be informed about this, but not with this unencyclopedic drivel. --Kinu t/c 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. The article doesn't actually describe an organized movement which bears the name "matriarchal marriage"; it's just a biased, POV and just plain weird take on the hardly new or radical phenomenon of the stay-at-home dad. There most certainly is not any growing trend of marriages where women own all the property and men are restricted to domestic servitude. Gender roles in marriage are certainly evolving, but not that far or fast. Matriarchal marriage is a valid and encyclopedic term, but this isn't even close to being the right article about it. Bearcat 05:07, 19 July 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. Punkmorten 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Frank Anderson

I don't know what the hell this is. It seems to just be random crap, with links spammed onto other pages. See Stephen Root. Delete this please. Jack Cain 15:47, 13 July 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. Punkmorten 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkmiracle

Reads like an advertisement. Top album sold "more than 350 copies". From the Dominican Republic so I have a hard time judging if they meet the WP:BAND test, but 350 copies doesn't sound like a major band. GRBerry 16:02, 13 July 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. Punkmorten 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gathering of Storm Clouds

Contested prod2. Nominating as the prod2'er. Seems to be NN. --ais523 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Wikipedia

Non-notable website (Liberatore, 2006). 16:23, 13 July 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. Punkmorten 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Cafe

Non-notable small cafe - does not meet WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment.

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

The result was strike with ten-pound sledge. Punkmorten 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elektriq

Advertisement for non-notable online publication. Deprodded without comment.

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyface

Looks pretty made up, monkeyface "pubic hair" only gives 45 hits on Google, with just a single one mentioning the subject at hand (excluding Wikipedia/mirrors). Article was created by a user with a single edit. Woseph 16:56, 13 July 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. Hamilton

Delete as this is an essay which is original research - I am not sure, but could it be transfered to anther wiki? Gay Cdn 14:04, 8 July 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, Computerjoe's talk 16:54, 13 July 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 List of neologisms on The Simpsons. No need for Afd in cases like this. Friday (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skotchtoberfest

De-prodded without comment. Fake-holdiday on Simpsons, and this page should either be merged to one of the many Simpsons pages or deleted, which is probably the best choice. 11kowrom 17:00, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Golberg

Non notable candidate fails WP:BIO doktorb wordsdeeds 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep May have some notability as an academic--Her 1998 paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing has 13 citations in the ISI web of science database (which is a fair, though not huge, number). Expansion to include information about academics would be appropriate. --TeaDrinker 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, 13 citations as an academic is not particularly noteworthy, per WP:PRPF WilyD 17:21, 13 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:05, 13 July 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. Punkmorten 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nugget porn

Delete non-notable neologism, unverifiable as actual practiced porn genre. Google shows nothing but a relative smattering of off-hand uses of the term,[35] and a Google image search reveals no actual nugget porn, which I find particularly damning.[36] Postdlf 17:07, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-baiting

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, if it were grounds for deletion, most of Wikipedia would be gone. –Joke 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 14 July 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 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rat-baiting

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good article, on a historical topic of interest to some people, and supplying information that is difficult to find elsewhere. It does seem that Hipocrite has an objection to the sport or the main author, but neither of those is grounds for deletion of the article. Rbraunwa 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the information sources are not listed in the article, it is a violation of WP:V. Do you believe this article complies with WP:V, given that you believe we are the sole source of information regarding this so-called sport? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was impossible to find the information elsewhere, just that I don't think it would be easy. The author of the article has found the information, in the sources he cited. He is making it available in a more accessible location. It seems to me that's a major functon of Wikipedia. Rbraunwa 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His sources do not support the article. Did you review them? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
+Tags
It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think this needs a good cleanup to avoid OR and possible copyvio and needs better sourcing. Having said that, it is definitely encyclopaedic and of interest. BlueValour 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Monkey-baiting Rat-baiting and Lion-baiting articles. SirIsaacBrock 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article could use quite a bit of work. Even more optimal would be if the gruesome nature of the story of the bulldog and the dwarf were made slightly more palatable. Nonetheless, article is well-sourced and NPOV. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has no referenced secondary sources (the two listed books are not used for anything), and the entirety of the content that does not consist of gruesome anecdotes of fights reads "Human-baiting is a blood sport involving the baiting of humans." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a strange article, but then it was a strange "sport". I had never heard of this before, but where else than Wikipedia could a person easily find out about it? And the fact that it's unpalatable now doesn't make it any the less a historic occurrence. Rbraunwa 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not convinced its an established sport, rather, they seem like a collection of anecdotes where humans were baited. In any case, assuming the sourcing is correct, I only see a need of a clairification for the lead paragraph. And also, I would request nom cite an actual WP policy next time he/she would like to post an afd. hateless 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge reliable parts (if any) into bait (dogs). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the articles using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many citations in the articles up for deletion. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 14 July 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 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustagen

Advertising. Deprodded by creator. --ais523 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It certainly seems to be a nutitional drink of little notability and importance; apparently this stuff is not available in North America so hopefully some of our AU/NZ contributors will weigh in.--Isotope23 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Does not appear to be advertising (no marketing-speak) any more than any other soft drink article would be. Notability, however, is the reason for the "weak" part of the keep vote. Google searching seems to indicate a new/emerging product. Agree with Isoptope23 re: AU/NZ contributor feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chet nc (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Does not seem to be an ad at present, although a few reviews appear online make me think it is more than yesterday's rollout. --TeaDrinker 04:06, 12 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:18, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite Research Society

the page is little more than a dicdef, and there's really nothing else that can be said about it. MSJapan 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with a merge is that this particular Research Society is one associated with the A&ASR Southern Jurisdiction in the US, and is not a universally present group (the AASR Northern Jurisdiction, for example, does not have one), so it's a bit difficult to add in. MSJapan 21:50, 7 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not in a position to say whether it is notable enough to merge into Scottish Rite but the editors of that article can decide if they want to incorporate it. BlueValour 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable organization. There is not "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" per WP:ORG (which is a proposed guideline, but has essentially the same notability requirements as official guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:CORP). --Satori Son 21:08, 19 July 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, the award on itself doesn't seem to be notable, and the society awarding it had its article deleted earlier. The biographical information could be merged to Albert Mackey, but I can't verify it and there are no sources in this article concerning it. - Bobet 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert G. Mackey Award

This is an nn award with only a five-year history, no list of recipients, and the part of the article that is actually about the award and not the person it was named after is only a stub, sourced to a few lines in one publication. MSJapan 14:19, 7 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 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, Will (message me!) 08:48, 20 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51 - Concept Album

I think the author himself summed it up best when JasterMereel (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) said on the article's talk page: "I am seriously fuzzy about some of the details of this... This is just what I could glean from the various websites about this album, if anyone actually has it then please correct."

As far as I could work out, Area 51 is a "science fiction" concept album starring Claudia Christian from Babylon 5 that spawned a musical. By seeing as I can't find any information on the actual album apart from the copyright-violating copy/pasted reviews on the article, I think I can safely say it fails WP:MUSIC. If it's not listed on Amazon or Allmusic, how else can anyone be expect to find this album? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think it is a bit unfair that an article should be wiped purely because the product is not on Amazon... the CD was previously available from Dress Circle, FootLight Records in New York, and all Forbidden Planet stoers in England. It was also sold through UFO Magazine, and is currently available through www.musicline-ltd.com (which in fact DOES sell through Amazon.) My society is staging the show and we were pleased to see the artilce. I have alerted the author, who states that, the authors of the original quotes do not mind their feedback being printed. I have asked him to contribute, so maybe that will help too.
    Just checked about what is "notable" - The author, Daniel O'Brien, was nominated for the Really Useful Group Best Newcomer Awards at the Vivian Ellis Prize 2000. This should qualify for a major music competition - it was a staple of the Musical Theatre industry for many years, and was where the lyricist for Phantom of the Opera was discovered. Many industry profesionals were judges - Cameron Mackintosh, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Don Black etc. The composer / arranger of the show / CD is Iain Cook, of the band Aereogramme, who have been published by Chemikal Underground Records worldwide, a very respected indie Scottish label who also publish Bell & Sebastian and The Delgadoes. So hopefully this won't be deleted, would seem a shame to! We are having a great time in rehearsal and hopefully others can find out about it too through this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.247.248 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a little fuzzy on the details since I don't have the album... (but would like it thanks for the hint on how to get it)

If the critera for deletition was that it is no longer available could we also remove most minor bands enire back catalogue? And if the Criterea for deletion is that the article is incomplete can we remove all the stub articles? Could Stifle fill in some of the details please ? --Jaster 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I def think this should stay - there seems to be quite a lot of info now, and it can also still be bought... why so keen to delete something? It's a fun show, we certainly like it, it has been staged to very positive feedback and been in a lot of magazines / press. Fingers crossed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.247.248 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as nn. Also, by the anonhymous comments above, it seems pretty safe the article's appearance is to puff the revival of the 2001 musical, thus, an advertisement. In most afds, editors are faced with judging notability from evidence here and now. In this case, we have the hindsight of five years to judge by. The original musical had a handful of reviews, arguably the most notable being the SF Channel's. There is nothing since, the album isn't available anywhere that I can find except from the one outlet in the UK. It's not an official WP policy, but I'm saying the musical disappeared with nary a whimper and nothing to mark its passing in five years. Tychocat 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The musical that this CD is of is still in production - see comments above - these are Amateur productions that would be much more likely to want to be able to find something about the musical on Wikipedia, the CD itself seems to not be available but when did this make it worthy of deletion? --Jaster 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain "It's not an official WP policy, but I'm saying the musical disappeared with nary a whimper and nothing to mark its passing in five years" - it's ironic that you are requesting objectivity when you lack it yourself, making an ill informed and unprofessional comment, which you yourself admit is irrelevant in the current context. It is very easy to be snippy - one might suggest that you need to learn how to spell, for example. The fact of the matter is, the show is out there being produced. We could supply some photos, if you're interested. It is also available for purchase. I really don't see the problem - a dictionary is intended to impart knowledge, why so eager to cut information? It's very easy to hit delete, not so easy to invest a little time into something. There are people out there investing money and staging this work, it has been featured in a lot of media features, what more do you want? There are people who are more than happy to give you the info you seek - photos, details of the show itself, just list them and they will be supplied (some already have been). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.247.248 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: Details of your production of a musical have nothing to do with the notability of this album. It'd be more appropriate for a separate article called "Area 51 (musical)" but it's irrelevant here. That's the problem of this article. It doesn't focus on the notability of the album but tries to promote a musical that you're putting on. Note the conflict of interest? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:52, 19 July 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 per WP:SNOW and CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness

This article consists entirely of nonsensical musings over pseudoscientific psychic claims. Most references are either not reputable, or taken out of context. Legitimate content concerning somewhat similar pseudoscience can probably be found elsewhere in wp, though I don't currently recall where. Delete Philosophus T 17:21, 13 July 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 Eluchil404 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 4 Agresso

It reads as an advertisement and seems to fall into WP:OR otherwise. Gay Cdn 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the article to make it more encyclopedic. --Sleepyhead 09:46, 10 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 13 July 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. Punkmorten 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Board

Presumably non-notable internet forum. Google returns a few links, no more. Wikipedia is not a directory of web sites. Notability and importance non asserted anyway. Edcolins 21:55, 7 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid talk show

This article is both a long-winded explanation of a neologism and also original research. It is heavily POV, and heavily non-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro5 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nomination, except for the part about the phrase being a neologism. There are enough Google hits to suggest that the term has reasonably established a common definition. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article and I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. I will do my best to remove POV and long-winded language, and add references. I don't think it should be deleted or merged with another article because many sociologists feel tabloid talk shows represent a very unique period in American pop-cultural history and since there have been entire scholarly books written about tabloid talk shows, there should at least be a wikipedia article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article looks interesting and I notice attempts made to make it less POV and more cited in the past day, with mentions this effort will continue. I think assisting with the formalizing of references and helping make the article more NPOV would be more useful than deleting it. The efficacy of a merge would depend on the amount of useful information after slimming, but I note no mention of it on either talk page and at present I oppose a merge. TransUtopian 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As TransUtopian points out, I am trying to make this article more neutral and referenced. I took a lot of the details from the Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake page, and now that I read it over there was indeed a lot of POV language like "vulgar" and "trashy". But I obviously agree with TransUtopian that these are simply a matter of style and can be slowly corrected if you're all kind enough to give me and anyone who wishes to help the opportunity to do so. I also believe it would be a huge mistake to merge this article because it describes a very unique breed of talk shows representing a transitional period in American history and the article mentions a Yale sociologist who wrote an entire book about the genre and he's not the only one. I also felt the article was needed because the intro to the Phil Donahue page used to contain a huge long winded explanation about how he was the first of the talk shows to take his microphone into the audience etc. I edited the intro to simply say he hosted the first tabloid talk show, with a link to this page explaining the concept and significance. I believe this article is relevant to many different existing wikipedia articles as this genre has existed for decades and was watched by tens of millions of in the U.S. alone Editingoprah 03:57, 12 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "tabloid talk show" is used in the subtitle of the book by the Yale professor: "Freaks Talk Back: Sexual noncomformists and tabloid talk shows". Can't get a better source than a Yale professor.-- Cartridges 15:34, 15 July 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. Punkmorten 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathsoc football

Non-notable amateur football (soccer) club. Cathsoc football doesn't meet WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Perhaps a merge with Oxford University Catholic Society would work, but I question the notability of that organization, too. -- Scientizzle 17:51, 13 July 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 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Car I Win

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Need I say more? Alas, Category:Car_games has set awfully slippery slope. "SHOTGUN!" --  Netsnipe  (Talk) 

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunacore

Non-notable website that fails the WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 72,373[37].--TBCTaLk?!? 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Tapir Terrific 18:08, 13 July 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; content userfied to User:Kaustuv/WRGPT. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have in turn moved it to User:Kidtire/WRGPT, as he was the original and sole author of that page. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRGPT

WP:SPAM for the "World Rec.Gambling Poker Tournament". A non-notable WP:WEB-site. Google hits (WRGPT): 658. No Alexa traffic rank for: quizkids.com. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WRGPT - WRGPT is not a website. It is a free, no fee, no prizes, no sponsors email-based poker tournament that has been in operation for 15 years completely by volunteers for the enjoyment of 1100+ players. WRGPT is a small part of the history of the net and the history of poker. It was started out of conversations on the newsgroup rec.gambling back in 1991. Please do not delete this entry. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.2.222 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-13 17:06:57 (UTC) (this was me) --Kidtire 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: drew a border around multi-line comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The border gives undue prominence to one IP's comment. I lumped everything together as per convention for comments. Kimchi.sg 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (please) - I am the definitive source for the tournament since 1999 and have discussed the history with those who preceeded me. I have been asked by many users why there wasn't a Wikipedia article on WRGPT so I decided to write one. Certainly there are many useless articles that should be deleted but this one should not be in that category. There are several articles in Wikipedia, for example, on relatively unknown poker personalities. This article is useful to many and harms none. --Kidtire 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User's only contributions are to the article and this AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is correct. I am wanting to help with this wonderful resource and have decided to start by contributing on a subject upon which I am an expert. Thank you for the editting suggestions and contribution guidelines. I am learning and trying to be useful. --Kidtire 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WRGPT is part of poker history. It can easily be verified by current WSOP players (e.g. Andy Bloch, 2nd place winner of the $50K HORSE tournament 2006). WRGPT predates on-line poker. Kaustuv Chaudhuri editing suggestions are a good start for improving this article. Not only should this article be kept, but new articles on IRC-poker and BARGE should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erb2000 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete due to sock flood. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I mean absolutely no offense, but that's without a doubt the worst voting rationale I've ever seen. So sockpuppets are voting for it- how does that change the merits of an article? I'm putting down "keep," and I'm not a puppet. If Doyle Brunson somehow made it to AfD, and a bunch of socks said to keep it, would you want to delete that, too? If you think the article does not assert notability, then that's one thing, but your contribution to the discussion is about as useful as a sock's. -- Kicking222 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment it's not expounded upon well, but flood of sockpuppets is a usual signature of an article that needs to be deleted, the same way The article about this band is written in the first person is a usual signature that the article needs to be deleted. In this case, the flood of sockpuppets is a result of the article's total failure of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SPAM et al. WilyD 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, on the other hand, think sockpuppetry is one of the more valid reasons to delete an article. It is considerably more objective than the notability guidelines that can be interpreted in any number of tortuous ways. I have voted keep above, and will stick to it because my rationale remains unchanged, but there have been many instances in the past where I have changed by vote to delete based on the disgusting amount of puppetry in an AfD. The article currently doesn't stand on its own merits, and my attempts to spur constructive discussion on Talk:WRGPT and User_talk:Kidtire (the author of this article) have been met with stony silence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that Doyle Brunson wouldn't have a bunch of socks voting in that AFD, unless you're counting on all the members coming over from the Doyle Brunson RPG Forum, which, by the way, would be the most awesome forum ever. Wickethewok 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Will (message me!) 08:45, 20 July 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.Blame the five of spades.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 of spades

.— Arthur Rubin |(talk) 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP!!! As a professional poker player from Las Vegas, I have often found that the 5 of spades is unlucky. Yesterday, for example, I lost both my cars and $24 thousand, all because of that evil card. Many of my fellow card players have had similar problems and they all blame it on the 5 of Spades. --pokerking 10:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this entry. I am a professer at Oxford University, England. I have an MSc in Applied Statistics and also do some work for RoSPA (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents). My department has found that over 90% of household accidents and over 70% of all accidents are a direct cause of, or happen in the near vacinity of the 5 of spades playing card. I conclude therefore that you should not delete this entry as our findings backup the speculation of this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by profanthony (talk • contribs)
  • Delete.Seems like original research.Also note that User:pokerking and User:profanthony have no other edits. AfD discussions are not votes, and attempts to "stuff the ballot box" with new accounts aren't likely to help your cause. fbb_fan 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading this page, it seems that the superstition surrounding this particular card is unique to my area of the world - I apologise that this is not internationally recognised. I have not so much as mentioned this entry to anyone I know and due to the tone of these two defending entries, I believe they are simply just jokes. I know that this claim, however, will be difficult to prove. --Kryters 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Also edited --Kryters 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (inclusion of the italicized text)[reply]


  • In my opinion this entry should stay because it explains the folklore surrounding this playing card. The history of many seemingly odd things appear in the wiki. It is possible that this is a regional superstition but that should not rule out its credibility in the wiki. Perhaps however there should be a link in the superstitions entry to this an example of regional superstition?
  • Gorgia Guy: Yes, the Ace of Spades is notable, however, in Kryter's view, and in his area, the 5 of spades may be equally notable.
  • Porquin & Chomes75: Although not backed up by reliable fact, the article is not based on the view of an individual that "the 5 of spades is unlucky". It is based on the sup[erstitions of a region and goes on to explain variations of card games; not necessarily related to the so-called bad luck of the card.
  • Recury: I'd not heard this either but I have played the mentioned versions of the card games involving the 5 of spades, perhaps there is a basis to the entry?
  • There might be a basis to it, but we need to see at least one or two things published that mention the 5 of spades being unlucky. If you could just find a couple web pages that mention it being unlucky or at least as part of the rule variations that are mentioned in the article, that would go a long way towards convincing people to keep this, I think. Which part of the world are you from, if you don't mind my asking? Recury 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to a tarot site has been added to the origins section, explaining that it is a card with very negative effects. [[41]]. I live in the Highlands of Scotland. Many people in this area are at least familliar with the idea that this card is apparently unlucky. --Kryters 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authur Rubin: I hadn't heard that before. You should make an entry if there are theories about it.
  • Pokerking: Could be completely due to luck.
  • Profanthony: I'm afraid I question your credibility. I couldn't find the statistics you mentioned anywhere.
  • Fbb: I agree that this is not a vote. However, just because the users have not edited before it should not damage their credibility.It is possible that they are just new and this is their first edit, as it is mine.
  • Kryters: It may be that this supersition is a local thing but I feel this should not hinder its credibility; nowhere is it stated that regional entries will be removed on the basis that they don't apply to everyone.
  • My conclusion is that this entry should remain as there is no valid reason to remove- it if it is true that in the author's area this card is regarded as unlucky. If it is removed I would like to request that the section on variations of card games remain as there is no problem with that part.

Hope my contribution is helpful, The Flame Haired 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflamehaired1 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom and sockpuppetry (also note that Theflamehaired1 has no other edits because of speedy deletes on articles he made, as warned on his user page). I doubt that the five of spades has any sort of notability as to being unlucky over any other cards. It appears to be orignal research, which Wikipedia shouldn't have. Ryulong 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether sockpuppetry was involved or not, it is the value of the arguments that theflamehaired1 put forward that is important - though I deny any association with this user. As it states above, this is certainly not a vote. --Kryters 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, in standard decks of cards (to my knowledge), the five of any suit only has 9 figures on it (the five suit symbols, 1 number in the northwest corner, 1 number in the southeast corner, and the suit symbols in each of those corners). Ryulong 06:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have noted above, the 5 of Spades is also highly unlikely (unlucky) in tarot [[42]]. Also, [[43]] shows that the 5 of Spades corresponds to a jealous rival when enquiring about love. Many packs of cards go by a different design, with the number and symbol in every corner, as you can see by the entrys picture. This clearly shows 13 black figures in the design. --Kryters 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unlikely in tarot is right.Our article Tarot doesn't even recognize "spades" as a possible suit. — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spades corresponds to swords in tarot. [44] --Kryters 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still, in normal Playing Cards, ones that people play poker, euchre, cribbage, solitaire, etc. with, the five of any suit only has nine figures on it. The image on the article is taken from an outdated version of Microsoft's Solitaire. The version on my computer does not have numbers or suit symbols in the northeast and southwest corners, just in the other two. Ryulong 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is another point for dispute. According to [45], original cards went by the design shown in 5_spades.PNG - with symbols in each corner. However, these designs have faded in favour of the version you have described. I noticed you described the design as "out of date" rather than "original" :). As far as I know, Microsoft Solitaire has always used the simplified version of cards - I made 5_spades.PNG myself based on the MS design. --Kryters 13:39, 18 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_13&oldid=63644122"