Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Royalguard11 (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 23 July 2006 (Dominic Homan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 22 July 24 >

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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battling High School

No google hits, unsourced, can't find any references whatsoever. This has the feel of a hoax or a fictionalization of the creator's life problems. I'm listing it here to see if we can reach consensus about its reality. -- dcclark (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possible misunderstanding here. This is not a real high school. Even the article does not claim that; it claims to be about a series on the Disney Channel, but there's no evidence to support that contention (It's not mentioned in that context by either Google or the Disney Channel). Perhaps you would reconsider your vote under the circumstances? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:39, 23 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 delete A7. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir araghi

WP:N. Ph.D. candidate Should be speedy db-bio, but author removed tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clappingsimon (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 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go2nplay

Nonnotable web design company, author removed prod tag. NawlinWiki 00:20, 23 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 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Alaska

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Alaska also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see you're nominating a bunch of these articles. It would be better to bundle these nominations together, rather than to have 50 of them voted on separately. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion in case you aren't aware of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xyzzyplugh (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I am aware of it, but choose to do a few at a time, the circumstances differ among them and I'm not planning to do all of them at once. Some have already been deleted independently. Good advice in general though! ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another note, while I realise it may make things a bit harder for those that comment, if all of them were put up as a single item, the closing admin would really have his or her hands full closing it should the consensus be delete... there are a fair number of inbound links to clean, and by having each one separate, the work can be divided. That's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent set by deletion of North Caroline list. Fabricationary 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has a cat. SynergeticMaggot 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use the category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Individual malls should probably be considered for deletion as well. Artw 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category serves the same purpose. Ericj 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess I have to go against the flow here. A list such as this, if the article is expanded, offers a greater value than simply adding articles to a category for the following reasons: 1) Adding the redlinks is a nice engraved invitation to "add content". You can't do that with categories unless you just create a bunch of stub articles but it's not quite as inviting because you have to open each one to see if it's a stub. 2) These articles don't (yet) do it, but the list could include a simple elaboration giving more information than just the article title, such as "Mall 1- Alaska's largest mall, in Anchorage", "Mall 2- Some notable information about this mall, in Juneau" (sorry, I'm a pretty anti-mall person, so I'm not the best person to illustrate the potentials here, but I hope I'm making my point). Overall, I think the articles have potential as navigation and indexing tools, but that potential is yet to be demonstrated. I don't think it's a reason to delete. I don't find it much different from the articles I spend much more of my own time on, which involve the taxonomy of fish. A majority of the higher-level taxa articles (genus and above) end up merely being a list of sub-taxa, although in time, someone (like me) will eventually come along and add some really good information to those besides the list itself (just a random example: Sucker catfish). This opinion applies to all the similar articles nominated below, but I won't copy and paste it down there yet until I see what other people have to say about what I've said here. Neil916 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this and all other similar lists, whether nominated yet or not. Crabapplecove 02:14, 24 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 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Arizona

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. While all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Arizona also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 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 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in California

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_California also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. (any in fact as of this writing) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 23 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 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Connecticut

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Connecticut also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which included this one. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 28 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 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Delaware

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Delaware also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which included this one. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 23 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 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Florida

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Florida also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which however did not include this one. Note also that these are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 23 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 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Georgia, List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state)

We've had a bit of jumping around on this, and we've some folk recreating deleted content, which I speedied already, but I think it best to bring this one back for AfD once and for all. There are two articles in question here, which differ in their title by having or not having (U.S. state) on the end: List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) and List of shopping malls in Georgia... See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) (closed 27 may as a redirect to the one without the ()) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Georgia (closed 20 July as a delete) for the earlier discussions. I think once again, this article in all its incarnations needs to go. There is a category for this as with the other states Category:Shopping_malls_in_Georgia (U.S. state) and the list is just not needed. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 23 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 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Hawaii

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Hawaii also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 23 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 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Idaho

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all (two of) the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Idaho also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 23 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 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Illinois

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. It is also very incomplete. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Illinois also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 23 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 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Indiana

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Indiana also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 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 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Iowa

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Iowa also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:40, 23 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Off Venezuela

NPOV perhaps, but that is cured by improving the article, not deleting it. It is not Original Research, however. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Early Day Motion cited by Seabhcan at least validates the existence of the organisation. I'd like to see more verified third-party sources of information about the group, but I think it's worth keeping it around on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending cleanup. Pretty much all WP:OR and most WP:NPOV issues are related to Venezuela itself as opposed to the group itself, and can just be removed from the article. If verified third-party sources can corroborate the organization's claims (three and a half years of activity, notable members and leaders, supporters in 30 countries), it would easily pass WP:ORG. It needs to be cleaned up (and SDS has volunteered!), but a decent article should be possible. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cfred asked for third party sources. Here are some: (GuardianUK) Indepenent) (paysite); London Mayor Ken Livingstone supports HOV (Vcrisis - anti-chavez site) (VenezuelaAnalysis) .
Some of the links David Schaich asked for: International membership: (US) (Australia) (Canada)
Other stuff: [www.cafepress.com/handsoffvenez (Cafepress)] (flickr) (PoliticalAffairs.Net) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now largly rewritten it. Hopefully all POV problems are gone. It still needs a critism section - but first I need to find sources. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:43, 27 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 delete. --Ezeu 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gordon (musician)

Non-notable musician, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. While "chris gordon" is a common name in a google search, making it hard to determine if any of them could be about this article's topic, his band, "Marc Likes Cheeze", gets 5 unique google hits, 4 from myspace Xyzzyplugh 00:45, 23 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 Delete. --Alf melmac 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current political issues in the United Kingdom

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Sun (nightclub)

Not notable at all. Cabled Substitution 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 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 userfy - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McWilliams

Delete -- NN, vanity, violates Wikipedia:Autobiography -- see article history Dbchip 01:20, 23 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 04:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka Dunin

Elonka Dunin is a Wikipedian who has gotten a friend to write an article about her and then edited it extensively. Working as a game developer does not make her notable, being mentioned in a few magazines does not make her notable. Being an amateur cryptographer (or amateur anything for that matter) does not make her notable. Working for a company that won an award for its product does not make her notable. Being thanked in a book does not make her notable. This is simply a case of someone abusing Wikipedia to gain publicity for themselves. There is way too much of that going on these days. Also note that a previous VfD was never closed. Danny 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier AFD is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin
Comment: The article has a notation on the talk page that the AfD was closed as a keep on 12 December. I'm not sure that's actually correct but I went ahead and marked the first AfD as closed for completeness. ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Barely on the edge of WP:NN but 3/4 of the article is, "who cares?" and apparently has tons of WP:AUTO violations. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why the first AfD wasn't closed... to my eye, it looks like a no consensus close, the arguments advanced are not clearly one way or the other. I looked long and hard at this article. I don't like to see vanity articles here. But I'm not convinced this article isn't about a notable person. The number of different publications cited, the published authorhood, the number of hits, the tie to Kryptos all seem to confer some notability. None is enough in my view all by itself, but together they seem to add up to just barely notable enough. Keep (with regret because I don't like to go against Danny, he's pretty sage). ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page is back to its original state so my vote reverts also. Delete dreadful vanity great-great-great-grandmother [was] Polish playwright, voice talent [on] etc. Neutral Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (as subject). There seems to be some possibility that this is a bad faith nomination on the part of Danny, because I disagreed with him earlier today in a Deletion review on the Musa Cooper article [2]. As for the accusation that I'm just using my Wikipedia article as self-promotion, trust me, my Wikipedia article ain't it. ;) When I need to get the word out, I use my elonka.com website. To be honest, as much as I love editing Wikipedia (I think I'm at around 6,500 edits at this point [3]), my own Wikipedia bio article is something that I tend to perceive as being drastically out of date, but I try to respect WP:AUTO and keep my fingers out of it except for very simple factual updates. As for "proving" notability, let's see: Elonka Dunin is a published author, notable game developer (some of her work is even cited as references elsewhere on Wikipedia)[4], and she's a frequently-cited consultant on the CIA's Kryptos sculpture. Typing "Kryptos" into Google shows that her site has even higher placement than that of the CIA or Wired.[5]. The elonka.com website has over 2 million page views, and the name "Elonka Dunin" is cited often in the news. Just this year alone, it's mostly related to stories about Kryptos, and a Da Vinci Code-related story, (see: Smithy Code)[6]. Recent media appearances that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia bio (gee, I must have been falling down on the job in terms of using my Wikipedia bio for self-promotion): Washington Post [7], MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann [8], NPR's All Things Considered [9], Wired News[10] (this story was also the #1-ranked headline on AOL). Want more? Check the place I do use for self-promotion, my press page. --Elonka 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some of that notability applies to the website though, not to you, no? perhaps elonka.com is what needs the article? That may be hairsplitting though, I dunno. Perhaps both do. Somehow, though, I just don't see Danny as doing a WP:POINT on anyone, that may not be a good place to go. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not bad faith at all. This simply made me aware of the fact that there was an article about you. Whether it is in that article, your user page, or your talk page, you are using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that is simply unacceptable. I sepnd many long hours every day on the phone at the Wikimedia office, dealing with people who insist that we include articles about them because they are "notable." I get it from wannabe actors, pizza parlors, inventors, bloggers, you name it. The same efforts to prove notability, the same complaints, the same personal attacks (and I see that comment as a personal attack). Sorry, but there are guidelines. Those guidelines may have been bent out of shape by process over the past year or so, but there are guidelines nonetheless. WP:AUTO is a guideline that was violated by the incredible amount of vapid information posted to this article, and by the fact that in the talk page Elonka goes on an on about where to find even more information about her. For everyone reading this I ask: Will we have an article for every person involved in the creation of video games--they are massive productions? Will we have every person involved in the creation of a film? Just look at the roller for any film to understand what this will entail. Where are the limits where we say "No, this is not worthy of inclusion. This is barely verifiable." Wikipedia is, and will remain to be, an encyclopedia, not a directory for anyone looking for attention. The fact that we are online must not be turned into a means of boosting someone's own website or ego. This is nothing more than spamming. Stating "Strong Keep" about one's self is nothing more than spamming either, and very tasteless spamming at that. oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions. Danny 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be reasonably notable abakharev 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lar. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as borderline notable. I mean, I know who she is, and she's fairly well known among other game industry insiders too, so she's probably at least as notable as many authors or musicians that have WP articles. That said, article would benefit from a stronger case for notability. --Alan Au 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to meet WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she wrote a fairly successful book, and has a reputation among cryptographers. The article may not emphasise this enough, because it's modeled after the other biography pages on wikipedia which tend to linger on a person's childhood and connections, rather than their accomplishments and notability. I didn't know I was disqualified from writing about her because I've seen her face to face like twice at industry networking functions. Subversified 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep heh, I actually heard that piece on NPR's All Things Considered the other day coming home from work. So yes, I would say that she is reasonably notable for her work on Kryptos. Other sources on it are in fact reliable sources and as such I'm voting keep.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (pared down at 05:02, 23 July 2006)

*Keep now that the article has been totally revamped, my previous concerns have been abated. I think it should be watched for WP:AUTO violations, I assume most of them are now gone. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (= original version)

Comment the page has been reverted to its original state - voters may wish to reconsider whether what they voted for corresponds to the current state of the article. Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm getting confused with all the different versions. Are we now determining WHICH version is notable enough? Can't we work on the broader question of whether Elonka Dunin is notable enough to warrant an entry about her, and THEN wrestle with the specifics of format and content as one normally does with any Wikipedia entry? I'm getting the two concepts of voting for deletion, and editing an article mixed up. FWIW I think editing is needed, but we may not all agree herein where, what, who, and how. -Quartermaster 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I agree with that in principle, I'm confident that the page will revert to its original cruft the minute editors eyes move on. I was hoping we could agree on a sort of reference version to keep that in check. But the water is now so muddy, I don't think a reasonable version is achievable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I think Bwithh makes good sense: Merge what is relevant, but not really seeing a whole article here. Then again, I may be out of touch with what is considered encyclopedic. Essjay (Talk) 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - it needs another 'ham handed' edit at least to make it relevant and not autobiographical cruft. Possibly a redirect to Kryptos and a single paragraph there explaining her relevance to it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it could use some trimming (not quite as dramatic as the one done above, however), but for the topic itself (which is more important, in this situation, than the actual quality of the article) is notable as per WP:BIO, and as such, should be kept. EVula 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and smack somebody with a trout minnow for sectionalizing the AFD by what version of the article they were seeing at the time. I pity the closer... -- nae'blis (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This notable person meets and exceeds WP:BIO criteria. Members of the Wikimedia Foundation should be setting positive examples, not making snide comments such as "oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", which is a provocative and unncessary personal attack by any interpretation. RFerreira 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep though it may need some cleanup. If you are concerned about her edits to that page or to its comment page, the correct response is not an AfD; it would be to go through the mediation process on Wikipedia. Jacqui★ 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see any problem here. bbx 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zippy, RFerreira and others. As for her edits, a polite discussion on her talk page along with a gentle, scholarly request that only citations from published secondary sources be included should more than suffice. Wyss 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject seems to meet a variety of notability tests. The editing of an article by the subject is not forbidden on WP, and edits are transparent so what is the problem? Aye-Aye 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article very clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. Danny's accusations that this is used for publicity don't seem to be based on anything whatsoever. I sincerely hope Elonka is incorrect in her suspected cause of this AfD. JDoorjam Talk 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments, figure meets WP:BIO notability criteria guideline and the nomination for deletion shows poor form. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm confused. Telsa and Angela and so tried getting their articles deleted, and they're definately known around the world :-) Elonka wants hers kept? <puzzeled look> IIRC Telsa had politely offered to nominate this page for deletion before. Note that Danny is very likely acting in good faith. Kim Bruning 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with Danny's reasoning in his nomination statement. I believe those things he mentions cumulatively make her notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Cla68 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most of above comments. the wub "?!" 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments, notable in her fields of game design and cryptography. Dreadlocke 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. She is quoted in The Guardian and in Science magazine and in The Washington Post + she's mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and on CNN.com + she has 25000+ Google-hits + she's quoted as a reference in a couple of WP articles + she seems to be fairly known among cryptographers + she is a published author. By the way I don't see how writing a comprehensive explanation (that includes several external references) on a discussion page could be qualified as "very tasteless spamming". And as for "whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", see WP:AGF. --Zoz (t) 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per just about everyone. Everyking 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not changed the world. NN. Vanity --Musaabdulrashid 12:33, 27 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 userfy. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani

This is blatant self-promotion. The sole contributor to the article is Yogani the author and founder of the group, [[11]], (the article of which is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP)) This goes against What Wikipedia is not in that it violates all three points of

Wikipedia is not a Soapbox:


Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and

3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability. Sfacets 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to Hanuman Das, I am learning. See my talk page for details. Apologies for the lecture, but you must admit you all have not been very helpful so far, acting more like gunslingers at a penny arcade than editors. The only purpose of AYP is to bring powerful easy-to-use yoga practices into the public domain (for free), and it seems there can be some overlap between that objective and Wiki. In fact, very little exists on Wiki on the particulars of individual yoga practices, and many new verifiable articles in this area are needed. Hanuman agrees. In any case, I understand what you are doing better now and will do my best to help out.
  • It is kindly requested that this article be moved to my user page, where I can clean it up for that purpose. If that is not possible, then I will repost a suitable version of it there when this one goes by the boards. Thanks much! Yogani 14:44, 25 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 Keep per here, under A1. SynergeticMaggot 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McChurch

Term is a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary —Hanuman Das 01:37, 23 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 moot. Already sent for copyright violation resolution. Ifnord 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kushies

No incoming links, probable SPAM, had asked for cleanup, wikify, etc with no responses. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:40, 23 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 delete. -- Longhair 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clark Burt

Seems to be WP:NN, one stray ghit. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit taken aback by the multiple statements above that there are no assertion of notability, and thus this is amenable to (and is currently tagged for) speedy delete. Is there some consensus on how specific assertions of notability must be to qualify?
Quoting from Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which is specifically incorporated by reference in the text accompanying A7 at WP:CSD "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." I think the following are assertions of notability, and are patently "remotely plausible" assertions of notability:
"a revolutionary educationalist, who changed the way many people think about technology...best known for his views and idea...He's been credited and cited in many informational essays..."
Can you imagine a professor who is a revolutionary educationalist, very infuential in his field, cited and credited in many scholarly articles; someone who would meet WP:BIO in spades, having this same article text written about him? I can. If that theoretical article was brought to afd, minor investigation would reveal that the same "assertions of notability" in this article, though vague and not very specific but nevertheless present, were true. We might have a call for speedy keep and expand. Here a little investigation shows that the professor is not notable enough for inclusion by our notability standards (I checked google and google scholar and found nothing) But do the assertions of notability themselves need to meet WP:BIO? I think not. Rather, the assertion of notability render the article unsuitable for speedy deletion, which is why we debate the merits more rigorously here. Please disabuse me of these notions. Until then I think speedy deletion of this article is out of process.
I would also note that speedy deletion does not serve us well once we have already each taken the time to visit this deletion debate. If the article is deleted, and then recreated with a bit more text, it can be tagged with {{db-repost}}. If it's speedily deleted, that tag is not proper because speedy deletion is by its terms not a deletion on the merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the difference between a speedy candidate and an "assertion of notability" is all about specificness. "Joe Schmoe is an awesome guy and everyone at school thinks he's great" is not an assertation of notability for the purposes of A7 speedies. "Joe Schmoe was awarded the Awesomeness Award in 1997 and 1999 by the International Awesomeness Society, and was named in Awesomeness Today magazine in August 2000 as Awesome Person of the Year" is an assertation of notability, which would then be verified and weighed in AfD. Specific vs unspecific is what makes the difference. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 23 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Bend Placer Claim

Should probably be transwiki'd to wikisource. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Both as a cut and paste copyvio and as a non-contextual blob, this is a speedy candidate. It doesn't explain what it is, where it is, what it does, etc. Geogre 12:27, 23 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. Canderson7 (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fury

Prod (with the reason of possibly being non-notable) was removed. It seems like some of the notability claims are exaggerated, but I can't tell, so for now my stance is neutral [changed: see below]. Ardric47 02:07, 23 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 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland House, Northumberland

This article is for a house with no noted importance or encyclopedic value. It reads like an advertisment and comes from an IP of a known vandel. SirGrant 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 28 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 DELETE (A7: Unremarkable people/groups). TigerShark 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elcid

Contested prod. NN singer, doesn't even claim to meet WP:MUSIC, no albums, et cetera. Mangojuicetalk 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Performing in restaurants doesn't assert notability. Fabricationary 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible claim to notability with assertion of an album despite not indicating whether released. However, he not listed at allmusic and the album is not for sale at amazon. In any event, this is a blatant copyvio from [14].--Fuhghettaboutit 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, so tagged, singer with no assertion of notability (saying that you recorded one album is not such an assertion). NawlinWiki 12:39, 23 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 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artaeum

Fictional text from an in-game book in the Oblivion videogame. Questionable fair-use of copyrighted material; at best belongs on Wikisource. Prod was removed by page creator. --Alan Au 02:42, 23 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Left-Wing Community

Non-notable, and if it is, then a blank article is better than this failure of WP:NPOV. Original PROD was removed, so "full" AfD. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yeah, yeah, I meant violates NPOV. Tweaked the wording... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, Transwiki. The group might feel more at home, and might actually get more interest and responses, transwikiing their content to Anarchopedia, the "people's encyclopedia" and a self-described experiment in anarchy. Unfortunately WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. Comparatively speaking, we're actually a pretty staid bunch here. --Shirahadasha 23:01, 23 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Club Anonymous

Article is about a campus club located at a university. No (inter)national parent organisation exists, and the club is relatively young (founded 2005). No verifiable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Genuine website with genuine bitter people!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) .

Presumably college students in NZ are old enough to at least get bitters instead. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 25 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 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arckiv.

Delete either per WP:CORP or a NN building. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:26, 23 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 deletion, with redirect. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnStar Privacy

Fails WP:WEB. Only 95 unique ghits for "OnStar Privacy" which is extremely low since a good number of occurrences of the phrase have nothing to do with the website in question. The article was proded and the prod tag was removed by the stub's creator on the grounds that the site is referenced on howstuffworks.com. However if you go to that page, you see a nice little blue button titled "click to add your site to this list". Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I still don't 'get it'. How exactly does being linked to on the OnStar article make the website notable per WP:WEB? In fact isn't this an additional argument for deletion since it is duplicate content? Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated when someone tried to {prod} it, the reason it is separate is to keep the main article from getting longer and being defocused. It’s appropriate to mention there, but its not appropriate to try and put all of the content from the stub I made into the main article. Its not duplicate content – it is two separate articles where each covers a different aspect of a very general and expansive subject. The OnStar article is about how OnStar works and this stub is about someone’s site that points out flaws. If you all want to delete it, I dont care. I think its valueable information to the main article and I stand behind its creation. --Shortfuse 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the community seems to be split between delete and merge, no one is on my side for keep save one, so perhaps I am putting the blinders on because its my own work. So I'll amened my vote to merge and redirect. Perhaps it is better to do it that way. --Shortfuse 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mind you I certainly don't oppose to a redirect, even though OnStar Privacy is unlikely to be a search. Pascal.Tesson 04:22, 24 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 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jurvetson

Nominator 67.181.45.197 says, "Not notable, looks more like business advertising than a encyclopedic article". I abstain. NatusRoma | Talk 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steve Jurvetson is perhaps one of the 10 (5?) most influential Silicon Valley venture capitalists alive today and is pretty clearly notable if you search in business publications. The article could stand improvement but this is a Keep to my way of thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I appreciate the apparent insight, I think documentation of Jurvetson's notability in the article is more important than making the argument in the afd. I am especially annoyed with the comment he's looking for investments, which makes the article sound like an RFP, or advertisement. Tychocat 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nod. If the article doesn't get fixed, userify it somewhere then if consensus is delete, I'm thinking a really bad article is NOT better than no article. this one isn't the worst out there though but ya. (as a note, any good VC is always looking for investments so saying so adds nothing to the article anyway) ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ezeu 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it quite odd that he would be considered a "non-notable" considering he is an extremely well known businessman. I agree that it should be cleaned up however. ExRat 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'an extremely well known businessman' is quite a statement, don't you think? That makes me think of Larry Ellison, Sandy Weill, Henry Paulson or Dean Kaman, not 'Steve Jurvetson'. Honestly, who the hell is Steve Jurvetson??? Desertsky85451 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try Google.com - non-notables don't usually register 53 pages of exact search results. ExRat 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said 'well known'. Well known is different that notable. I did not dispute his notability; I merely pointed out that he is not well-known in any way, shape or form. Desertsky85451 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I knew who he was though. Apparently 53 pages of other people knew who he was as well. ExRat 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll I'm very proud to have had this discusion with one of the really cool 54 people who knows of the amazing and brilliant Steve Jurveston, Venturer of Capital ;)Desertsky85451 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find Jurvetson neither "amazing" or "brilliant". I was simply saying that I disagree with the idea that he is "not well-known in any way, shape or form". There is no need to be snarky. My point was, within the realm of business, he is rather well known. And it was 53 pages - not 53 single people. ExRat 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I understand what you are saying, but still disagree. Jurvetson has not merely been on two-bit magazines. He was recently honored as "The Valley's Sharpest VC" on the cover of Business 2.0 and chosen by the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner as one of "the ten people expected to have the greatest impact on the Bay Area in the early part of the 21st Century." He was profiled in the USAToday, New York Times Magazine and featured on the cover of Worth Magazine and Fortune Magazines. In the world of business, that is "rather well known". ExRat 00:37, 27 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. Friday (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people with tattoos

It's essentially impossible to make a list of every celebrity that has a tattoo. Tattoo should document some of the people who are known mainly for their tattoos, but this list of people who just happen to have tattoos is excessive. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear timeline compared to reality

Blatant original research, combined with some wild speculation about the intents of the game designers and events not actually depicted in the games. This was prodded, but it was deprodded without comment by an anon who never made any other edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 23 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Librarianship Award

Internal award within a University Faculty Clappingsimon talk 04:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia. Can you show me exactly where "Internal award within a University faculty" is listed as a reason that an article can be deleted? I scanned the deletion page but didn't see the reason you gave. I don't doubt you but just want to see where I'd find this information in the future. --Headtale 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand the reasons people want to delete this article to a point but am curious how Wikipedia can claim to be the "sum of all knowledge" when everyone wants to delete an article about something that has legitimate purpose (or at least, as legitimate as stub articles about small villages in England that have less inhabitants than this award has had nominees over its existence or one line articles about reality TV show contestants. Something's out of whack here to me - am I off-base completely? --Headtale 07:57, 26 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 Keep. Nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canillas de Albaida, Málaga

Nothing at all here. Just a comment by User:Cariad. Delete -Royalguard11Talk 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete under G1. The text standing alone is not nonsense. The text in the context of appearing under the title of a location in Andalusia, is.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 23 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 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola College Chapel Choir

This article is for a small/medium sized university's club chapel choir. Should be considered WP:NN if not self-promotion. Only 31 ghits. DrewAC07 04:20, 23 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, Mo0[talk] 06:00, 28 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Coleman

Vanity article. The creator of this article uploaded several images tagged with "(c) Michael John Coleman I created this image", so apparantly, this article is an autobiography. There's a good chance that the subject is notable, however, as this article is original research and unverifiable, delete. BigDT 04:51, 23 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga and the Region of Peel controversy

Part of POV-pushing campaign by WikiWoo and already handled in full (it's a copy/paste job) in the article on the Regional Municipality of Peel where it belongs. OzLawyer 05:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article was created by concensus after much work of the Wiki community. You even agree that it belongs on the Peel Region page. It is an important issue in its own right and other wikipages such Mississauga and Caledon can link to this page to cross reference issues relevant to them. Also as other Reegions such as Waterloo and Niagara start getting into similar controversy because of the ingrained Regional Structure in Ontario it may become necessary to refer to what's happening in Peel Region on their pages sicne that will certainly happen in some, if not all, of the other Regions at some point in their evolution as Urban Areas and the need of Cities to go Single-Tier in these other areas.WikiWoo 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The articles for the Regional Municipalities are the logical place for such discussion. There is no need for a separate article for something that fits fully within another article. In addition, you can easily link to sections of pages like this. OzLawyer 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you win I suggest we rename this one "Ontario Single-Tier/Regional-Tier Controversies" and it can include this one and expand into other areas where these types of problems do and will occur. Maybe treat each Region as a separate section in this page. WikiWoo 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide reason
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Little Pieces (film)

There has been no activity in regards to this for quite some time now, and considering the chances of it actually going through with production I don't see why it should remain. If they do go ahead with production at some point then it should be re-added once it has become notable. R.E. Freak 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Optioned" + "discussed" ≠ "actually made". Thousands of projects fall apart in Hollywood every year. That process is so common and routine that it is not worth noting. Fan-1967 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be, if you could actually come up with a story on exactly how this one fell apart, and why this one did, and how that's significant. But right now it's just one more stalled project that may never happen. Recreate if that changes. Fan-1967 01:36, 24 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of the penny

Non notable film. prod and prod2 tags removed Clappingsimon talk 05:12, 23 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 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squizzle.com

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:22, 23 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 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo Sagas Event List

See the AfD for a similar Zatch Bell list. Reasons are identical. I would have prod'ed this, but the author would just remove it. Danny Lilithborne 05:30, 23 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 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castlebrook High School

Non-notable high school, orphaned article, Google turns up nothing substantial. Seems like promotional fluff. R.E. Freak 05:32, 23 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Obey

Candidate for state election. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Naughton Clappingsimon talk 05:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I singled out Massachusetts because of how they have structured the 2006 article on the general elections. By contrast, North Carolina has no article for the 2006 general elections, so for the same issue in NC, I would have suggested merging the information into an article on the lines of North Carolina House District 42, 2006 election. As a matter of feasability, I figured it is easier to keep the current structure for Mass. than to redo all the articles for challengers in all races in the state. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if BD2412's conditions can be met. An also ran in a state legislative election isn't particularly notable. If, for some reason, a candidate is particularly noteworthy then I say he would merit an article, but someone who runs once and loses won't be of interest to anyone after the election is over, and to very few while the campaign is ongoing. --Briancua 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidacy alone does not make one notable. Neither his accomplishments nor his stance on the issues add to his notability. The only outside link is to his campaign wev site, so I suspect a bit of WP:VAIN as well. No sources cited. There are many areas where this article fails to meet Wikipedia standards, so politics doesn't enter into it. --DarkAudit 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO needs a guideline on election candidates Clappingsimon talk 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - bd2412's condition's have not been met, and I don't think they can be. Candidate has never held public office, and is running against a six-term incumbant. I can only find two articles that mention Obey as a candidate; one criticizing Obey's statement that "Once again Senator Walsh has shown that she is bought and paid for by the gay lobby on Beacon Hill," implying that he is a one issue candidate only concerned with the gay marriage issue [16], and one on a different candidate that features a quote from Obey.[17] -- Vary | Talk 17:21, 27 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 speedily deleted by Wiki alf, per A8. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Whitener

This is a blatent advertisement. It contains very little substance. The biography is about an individual who may have negligible significance.Jay Carlson 06:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link and don't see an obvious copyvio ... if it is a copyvio then it should be listed as such and since it is a new article could be CSD {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.kenwhitener.com/about.asp}}
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. --Ezeu 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How useful directories on the net ??

Nothing but a list. Fails WP:WEB. Also considering speedy deletion. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:06, 23 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 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cydney Grossman

NN, very few Google hitsJianLi 06:35, 23 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 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Bastiat's debate with Proudhon

not notableJianLi 06:37, 23 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. Then will replace with redirect to Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. Ifnord 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teter and McDonald

NN comedy team whose only google hits are retreads of this article. Only claim to notability is being the act during the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire, of which their involvement is covered in sufficient detail on that page. Shaunvader 06:41, 23 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 for future generations. I gather the copyvio that BlueValour is talking about is the screenshots, I am following up on that, but if its just the screenshots it doesn't affect the existance of the article. Herostratus 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPVI-TV Anchors

This is Listcruft, NN, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Perhaps each station is notable enough to be given an article. But not the collective anchors and reporters of each station, and surely not individual anchors/reporters JianLi 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JianLi 06:22, 23 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. Rje 19:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodLounge

Deleted as PROD, then contested on my Talk page. Procedural nomination, no vote. Prod reasons were non-notable website, failing WP:WEB, Alexa Ranking 600,000+  RasputinAXP  c 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this AfD as there has been no discussion, continue (well, start I guess) below the line.  RasputinAXP  c 07:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry Updated - updates aded to entry in the hope it is now more relevant/suitable - keeping in mind various other podcast directories are also listed within wikipedia --Darkaz 05:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X exists, so Y must too isn't a valid reason to keep an article.  RasputinAXP  c 11:36, 25 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 keep. --CharlotteWebb 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

Original nomination

Given that Encyclopædia Dramatica has been successfully AFD'ed, I think it would be worthwhile to review the original KEEP decision in the case of this page. I would hold that Uncyclopedia is no more notable or verifiable than ED, so given that ED has been deleted, then to be consistent, Uncyclopedia should be deleted also. --SJK 07:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Q0 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It's been Slashdotted and has appeared in many mainstream places, including here. MER-C 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination - well, given the fact that it has been slashdotted, and ED hasn't, I think that could serve as a good reason to exclude ED and include Uncyclopedia. I would add, that by the same logic though, if ED were to be slashdotted, that would justify a deletion review of ED. --SJK 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [changed my mind; I'm not voting one way or the other, I just want to hear what people think --SJK 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • I hardly think being on Slashdot establishes notability. The Register may be a better source, but I don't knw. As far as a deletion review for ED, I'm pretty sure it's already happening. And just a note, I am not arguing for or against Uncyclopedia, just as I avoided the ED deletion mess. I'm just saying, I don't think being on Slashdot = automatic inclusion criterium. GassyGuy 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I opposed ED deletion, I'm not going to fight it any further -- I really don't care that much about (if someone else wants to DR it, that's their problem). However, I do care about consistency -- if ED is to be excluded, yet somewhat similar Wikipedia-offshoot sites included, then we need to come up with a good reason to include one and exclude the other. I agree that Slashdotting is not the best criteria -- but its better than none, and its not too bad a criteria. "uncyclopedia site:slashdot.org" ~ 568 ghits; "encyclopediadramatica site:slashdot.org" - 319 ghits. So both have been "slashdotted" -- albeit not in the sense of having a main article about them. 568 is bigger than 319, but I don't think its an order of magnitude difference. And note that neither has (as far as I am aware) been "slashdotted" in the sense of being featured on slashdot as an article; they've just been mentioned in the discussions. So, what is the rule/principle here? --SJK 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I think the Uncyclopedia article on adding a 200Gb hard drive to the iPod Nano was slashdotted? In any case, the main difference would appear to be that Uncyclopedia is not just one single wiki; it's a community of related projects hosted as twenty-two individual language wikis across multiple sites in the US, Canada and Europe. There are currently six Uncyclopedia projects which are above a thousand pages each. (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://nonsensopedia.wikia.com http://de.uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://hiki.pedia.ws http://inciclopedia.wikia.com http://zh.uncyclopedia.info in English, Polish, German, Finnish, Spanish and regular-script Traditional Chinese). Is that enough to be notable? --carlb 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice note: The reasoning from the closing admin for ED was that ED was only sourced to itself. The first 20 references in the uncyc article are itself. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 23 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. I'm refusing to merge 10 articles I'm not familiar with into a condensed version as the result of an AfD. Normally, I'd just let another admin do the job, but let's be realistic, this is more work than ANY admin should be asked to do. The info is on the web, anyone who wants to work on condensing it and writing original text may do so. Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 January

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Also reads like a straight copy and paste from somewhere. Possible copyvio? Resolute 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 February
Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 March
Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 April
Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 March
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 January
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 February
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 April
Spirit rover timeline for 2004 March

Resolute 07:59, 23 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, Herostratus 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if I'm a allowed a vote as the relister. This is just way, way too detailed information for an encyclopedia. There's a point where you have to say, if a really serious researcher needs minutae about a particular subject they'll have to find it off this Wiki, and we should provide links to that material. We can't swallow the entire world wide web. (As to copyvio, you'd think this would have come from NASA and thus be public domain, but a quick string search does indeed bring back only the private site [[19], so I don't know what's up with that.) Herostratus 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into a single generalised timeline. Useful and interesting information. However the copyvio poses a major problem. LinaMishima 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove most of it and merge the most important aspects to the main article. Delete the rest and link the timelines on NASA's site at the bottom of the main article. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend merge into a single timeline. Monthly breakdowns aren't needed. Copyvio issues need to be taken care of. I do not recommend a delete, however, unless we can preserve the basic facts somewhere for the creation of a master timeline. Kevin_b_er 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the work in doing this is going to be enormous. Checking down the text for copyvios will take long enough. Unless someone is happy to undertake this I stll think that deletion followed by the creation of a single timeline article, if anyone wants to do this, is the cleanest solution. BlueValour 01:53, 3 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.

Note: all of the articles (date) in baseball have been moved (or soon will be) to the baseball wiki at baseball.wikia.com. per the TransWiki decision at this AfD. Herostratus 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki. Mangojuicetalk 15:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2 in baseball

Not encyclopedia worthy enough (some events) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am nominating the following all "<date> in baseball" articles because of the same exact reason. (If someone would like to help me put of the AfD tags I'd appreciate it... putting up about 160~180 tags isn't fun ._.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:14, 23 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.

Pages Deleted

The following pages have been, or will be, deleted per this discussion. Links are being added here to allow “backlinking” to the discussion in the event that someone attempts to navigate to them and questions why they were deleted.

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Summers

Withdraw nomination The article has improved dramatically and now has sufficient claim of notability and enough verifiable content to let it evolve naturally. Dlyons493 Talk 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) The article has had multiple tags removed without content change. Most recently it has been deprodded with a request for more time. I doubt if notability can be established for this person, but if it is during the AfD period I'll happily withdraw this nomination. *Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) This is not at all true. As I've mentioned to Mr. Dlyons 493, I'm new to this Wiki business and I thought one could actually be allowed to begin an article before it's excoriated for lacking all the things I'm attempting to put into the article in the first place--including refs! What is significance in mail art? I ask. How does one prove that? Mr. Summers has been working in all of these fields--including mail art--since 1973 and I believe you're too quick on the draw, Mr. Dylons 493. Didn't I read someplace that it was common courtesy to notify a writer before one deletes text? Or did I just imagine that? White flag up here and please let me write this article before you delete it. Thanks, Jesse[reply]

  • Comment- Consider the clock ticking. The stub, as it stands, does not meet WP standards as noted, but I'm willing to wait a couple of days to see how it improves. I think the tags on the article give plenty of explanation as to what needs to be done. I will further refer you to WP:NOT, and WP:BIO. I am also willing to try answer questions on my talk page. Tychocat 12:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article just got placed. Before nominating for deletion, at least give the article a chance for improvement, and to have the tags addressed. Without spending a lot time looking, it does appear that the artist may be notable enough for an article. But I'll reiterate, give the article a chance for improvement. -- Whpq 15:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are cited, the guy has been featured on CNN. He's notable enough under WP:BIO and satisfies WP:V. This article needs a big cleanup, but it's not deserving of a delete. Allisonmontgomery69 16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -First, thanks to Mr. Diyons for his help in working with this text, and to both of the positive voters here. Next, some plans: I want to mark the Summers article clearly as a stub today, and to continue to add to the text. I'm trying to provide some context for Summers' art activities with my ref. to "first wave, second wave" intermedia artists and will try to expand on this. If you could please remove the screaming deletion notice, which is literally a dark cloud under which I must work--but keep the discussion--I'd really appreciate lessening the psychological tension here. This is a heck of a lot of work to do "under the gun" as it were! Your cooperation ferevently asked for. This article deserves to exist. Thanks! Jesse
  • Comment-Thank you so very much! We'll continue to work at it. Jesse
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of verifiability. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Chathunny

Procedural nomination of article that I deprodded as not obviously non-notable but perhaps difficult to verify, at least in English. This is a supposedly major South Indian businessman who lived from 1919 to 1990. Article is POV and needs a cleanup and references if it is kept.

The article was prodded by User:Eluchil404 with the argument that the subject was a "Business man who does not clearly meet WP:BIO reads like an obituary but wikipedia is not a memorial". Nevertheless there is enough claims to notability here that I think this should be brought to AFD: "top business tycoon in the Seventies, with interest in Hotels, Hospitals, Tile Industries, Retail and Wholesale Textiles, Hardwares, Pharmacies, Real estate, Liqour etc."

Keep in mind that he died before the internet era and lived in a part of India that is probably not as well-connected as other parts of the world, and that googling and other searches may need to be done in Malayalam or other languages of the region. up+land 09:02, 23 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 Computerjoe's talk 20:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim LeRoy

Air show pilot whose achievements and awards do not seem to reach the level of notability required by WP:BIO. Eluchil404 21:21, 17 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 09:10, 23 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. --JoanneB 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowden Mavericks F.C.

English football club that plays in divison nine of the Mid Sussex Football League, 17 divisions below the professional level, consisting of teams that are little more than village or pub teams. Delete Oldelpaso 09:25, 23 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 any relevant content to Bernie Ward. - Bobet 13:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Donut

nn group. only 71 ghits. Would speedy but they claim to have thousands of followers. --Pboyd04 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As a talk show phenomenon, we have to discount the host and station as non-independent sources. The WSJ article mentions the organization, but they are not the subject of the article. Insufficient evidence of notability. In fact, with Wikipedia excluded from the google search there are 9 unique hits of about 30. This is about as close to unheard of as you can get. GRBerry 01:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: With roughly three decades on the air, including two years in national syndication, the Church of the Holy Donut has long since established its notability. Goofle hit counts are notoriously deficient when it comes to subjects that predate the Internet ether, and the lengthy history of Bernie Ward's on air 'sermons' to his congregation of followers on a 50k watt clear channel far outstrips the lesser notability of the many single tv episode articles and one hit disco wonders that populate Wiki namespace. Ombudsman 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. It's claim of thousands of members is unverifiable; and besides, were it true, thousands of members of a religion is hardly notable. What have the Holy Donuts done? Raised the dead, built hospitals, hold parades where everyone weas a Fez? NO. parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Among the significant contributions made by Holy Donut congregants has been their many gifts to the annual Thanksgiving food can drive for St. Anthony's Dining Hall. One year, when Ward's contract had not been renewed by KGO (AM), the station was literally inundated with thousands upon thousands of cans; that clear show of support by congregants for one of the many causes advocated by Ward and the Holy Donuts had a direct impact on KGO's ultimate decision to continue broadcasting his talk show. With regard to the thousands who have claimed their membership on air by accepting an individual congregant number, surely KGO and its listeners would have raised hue and cry if the numbers were massaged in any way. Indeed, the numbers assigned to congregants represent a not-too-subtle poke at the sort of accounting deceptions and numbers manipulation that have contributed to the increasingly common phenomenon that statistics can be, and often are, misused, i.e. the "71 ghits" premise used above to misrepresent a subject that predates the Internet. Ombudsman 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll get more mileage out of the ghits irrelevant argument if you add citations to independent, older media articles that are primarily about this organization. I remain unconvinced that this meets our standards for notability. GRBerry 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was part of a club in college that gave 10,000 cans to a charity and that was all of 100 of us... Your story doesn't really help your case too much. --Pboyd04 00:04, 18 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 23 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. - Bobet 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Banks

I'm not entirely convinced that this term is in wide use and when it is used, that it is only because of the group listed in this article. The sources provided on the talk page include testimonials from Senators and Representatives (who will support anything generally) and documentary series. The series is funded by the FoR ENC group [20] (sorry its a cache) as well as the other documentary listed [21]. I am concern that the article reads like an advert for the company with all the TMs and things like the captions of the photos and the only resource given. Also a concern of mine is that the article was added by User:Kmills, the "Project Development Associate" for the group. The user and an anonymous IP who appears to be the same person added "____ is located in North Carolina's Inner Banks region" to many North Carolina articles, effectively spamming the article and term. Delete as an advert or, if people are convinced it's an okay term, clean-up to remove the advert nature of the article. Metros232 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Where to start on this one? Inner BanksTM--advertising; "branded the Inner Banks by the Foundation of Renewal for Eastern North Carolina (FoR ENC)"--neologism. "Becoming a popular destination" --according to who? JChap (Talk) 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I think this article should stay, but needs some cleanup and neutrality. It sounds like an advertisement. (I'll put tags to show as such) I personally have never heard of the Inner Banks, but I don't live on the coast; I'm in the Piedmont. I think it's a great term that should be used more often to refer to cities somewhat near the coast like Jacksonville and Lumberton. I wouldn't consider Fayetteville a part of it though... it seems too far west. According to this article, the term "inner banks" and the "outer banks" are just subdivisions of the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina, similar to how the Piedmont Triad, the Foothills, and the Triangle split up the Piedmont region. --TinMan 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This project is actually funded by the Golden LEAF Foundation, which in turn is funded by the North Carolina tobacco settlement. FoR ENC is a non-profit, and does not benefit from "advertising" this brand. FoR ENC owns the trademark to ensure the brand is not misused. As far as "'Becoming a popular destination' --according to who?", the Inner banks has been featured in the Boston Globe, Business North Carolina Magazine, Impressions Magazine, as well as several newspapers (just look at News & Observer summer series on the Inner Banks to see many articles on the impact that development and tourism is having on the Inner Banks, they are doing an entire summer series on this issue because of the fact that it is becoming such a popular destination). As for "I wouldn't consider Fayetteville a part of it though", the Inner Banks refers to the many rivers and intracoastal waterways of eastern North Carolina, Fayetteville is on the Cape Fear River and has worked with FoR ENC to have an article placed in the IBX Newsletter that features Fayetteville IBX Newsletter Winter 2005. Fayetteville sent the article (page 2 of the Winter Issue for 2005) to FoR ENC because they want to be a part of IBX (by they I am referring to Fayettevilles Travel & Tourism department). What I don't understand, maybe someone can explain it, is how this article can be viewed as advertising when Wikipedia has articles on the Outer Banks, the Piedmont Triad, and the Triangle when they are all nothing morBold texte than regional "brands" serving the travel and tourism sectors. I suppose the Inner Banks should be relegated to a blank hole on the map... I suppose the region is underserving of a "brand" since it is the home to many poor and minority people? I have provided more than enough outside sources to prove that this term is in use throughout the region and shown that it has been used outside of the region as well. --Kevin R Mills 12:59, 17 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, Ezeu 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the trademark symbol and logo picture have been removed. I also did some searches on Google and it seems to be a term that is used with the approximate meaning the article gives (I'm not certain about the area covered, as I did not do an exhaustive search on it). Also, the usages were not associated with the foundation. It would be nice if the article had additional references, though. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must stay, this is what it is - the inner banks !

  • Delete. Speaking as a North Carolinian, I can say with certaintly that there's is no such place as the "Inner Banks." It is a marketing concept invented fairly recently to lure tourists and retirees. I suspect that if you polled North Carolinians most wouldn't know what you're talking about. The term appears nowhere in any of the standard N.C. history or geography books or in the N.C. Gazeteer. Neither does it make any sense in geologically. It's ironic that Mr. Mills cites the recent stories in the Raleigh News & Observer as evidence of the popularity and existence of this mythical place since those stories deal primarily with the social and environmental consequences that rapid development is having on rural waterfront communities in Eastern North Carolina. -- gen. ludd 08/02/06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston FM

Non notable local radio station with limited audience. The article appears to have been or is still being used as a form of "blog" or advert for the station doktorb wordsdeeds 09:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this is normally true, I am from Preston and know this station only covers a limited area based around the University. It is barely "local" at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:36, 24 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. - Bobet 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judea Declares War on Germany

Not notable, the article is a short rebuttal of a silly argument on a fringe website (the IHR); no evidence that this is a widespread anti-semitic canard

  • Delete this is not independently notable, and I would not trust the Daily Express as a source anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, that's the whole point of the article (that the Daily Express headline was misleading, and is now being misinterpreted). Seems like useful historical information. NawlinWiki 12:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic essay (and WP:NOT a soap box in any cause, good or bad). It is a common enough Holocaust denier trope on usenet, but there's no reason to comment on it in isolation. If, and only if, there is some good reason (which escapes me) for mentioning the Holocaust denier interpretation of the Express article elsewhere on WP is there any reason to dissect it. As I said, I don't believe there is such a reason, so there's no reason for the rebuttal/explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this content belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be merged into a relevant article, not be a separate article. --Metropolitan90 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the myth actually is quite widespread amongst anti-Semites and the far-right, not unlike they mythical Kosher tax. It's referred to quite regularly on Stormfront, Holocaust Denier David Irving promotes it[22] and it is also promote on sites like [23] - there is even a "documentary" film promoting the thesis[24]. I agree, the argument spread by anti-Semites is silly and ahistorical but so are many canards. It is useful to have an article that reviews the actual facts. Homey 18:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a more holistic article on such Holocaust-related hoaxes. bd2412 T 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NawlinWiki. Historically important, and still referred to today, as shown by HOTR. Picaroon9288 23:25, 23 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 MOVE material in Daniela Alonso to Daniella Alonso, which is apparantly the correct spelling, and make Daniela Alonso a redirect to Daniella Alonso. (I moved the material as a simple copy-and-paste move, considering that (1) it's a very small article, (2) the articles under both spellings have a significant history, and (3) I do not know how to do this page history merge which is spoken of. If it wasn't just a stub I wouldn't close, but this is one of the last remaining for this date.) Herostratus 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Alonso

This article has an incorrect title. This article should actually be at Daniela Alonso. Daniela Alonso has already been created so I can't move the page. I have moved all of the information to this article. Daniella Alonso therefore simply needs to be deleted... godgoddingham333 10:15, 23 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. Rje 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANBy, ANCo, and ANEc

These pages should probably be deleted. They are essentially copies of policy/regulations relating to Al Nabad (which itself seems like POV and advertising in my opinion). I thought of nominating these articles to be merged into the Al Nabad article, but their content is unencyclopedic. Transwiki'ing crossed my mind as well, but this material may be copyrighted and I don't know much about that sort of thing. I think these three articles should be deleted and minimal content from them mentioned in the Al Nabad article if possible and useful. Of course, I'm hoping more experienced editors can weigh in on the matter and come up with the proper solution. BigNate37T·C 10:19, 23 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 but send to WP:CP. Proto::type 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Durie

Notability/importance in question. ghits:[25][ --NMChico24 10:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stubbed it after tagging it. The previous version was this. It is not all verbatim, but it is in parts and other parts are very close paraphrases:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23| John joined the Jesuits and there is little doubt that he was ‘Jesuit Durie’ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23
becomes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23| John Durie joined the Jesuits and there is little doubt that he was ‘Jesuit Durie’ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23
.
Changing one or two words does not make it original work. I asked the creator just now for an explanation re copyright status, we'll see. Verifiability means WP:RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 23 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 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Ngina

Wife of Kenyan president, not exactly notable Computerjoe's talk 10:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - German Wikipedia has a more substantial article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_Ngina Also Kenyetta was a very notable person --Michael Johnson 13:26, 23 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 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Dark Lily

This appears to fail everything, including WP:NOT, WP:VAIN and WP:NPOV, unreferenced, unnotable, there is a webpage, but... that shouldn't save it from Delete--Richhoncho 10:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 28 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 keep recommendations are very weak in relation to established policy. Rje 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny English 2

The Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. The external link is dead. WP:V, WP:NOR and much more applies Computerjoe's talk 10:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is actually a film by this title when/if it ever comes out then maybe restart the article. It doesn't exist yet and if it ever does, it may even have a different title. Snakes on a Plane is an example of how working titles can change. Delete --Guinnog 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - WP is not a CB etc - films should not be on here until a release date has been fixed. BlueValour 02:05, 29 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.

Butterface was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 15 votes to delete, 2 to keep. Postdlf 06:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Butterface

Butterface was speedy deleted as patent nonsense but does not qualify, since it is not unintelligible or lacking in meaning. More than 24 hours after a request for clarification made to the deletor I've received no reply, so here it is after undeletion as an out of process deletion. This listing by me neither supports nor opposes deletion - it's just required by undeletion policy. Jamesday 18:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NB: Content was Butterface: A female who has a very good-looking body but an ugly face (comes from "Everything looks good but her face"). Used by males. Since then the content has been updated.

  • Neutral at present - it's little but a dictionary definition but I gather at least a couple of people think it has potential. We'll see. Jamesday 18:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd agree with the speed delete, too, frankly, because this is not nonsense, as the deletor said, but a vandal joke, an obvious one. It's simply someone's sex joke and perpetuation of juvenalia. Just informing the world of his buddies' slang. Geogre 19:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not just his buddies' slang. I heard the word used in 2000. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Were you not also the one who suggested that some high schools on VfD were famous, but couldn't state what for, or was that siroxo? :) --Improv 21:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Aren't you the one who suggested that the most famous cheese steak place in the world was not notable, or was that RickK? BTW, [32] 2/5/2000. anthony (see warning) 01:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A quick Google check suggests that the word might be a Howard Stern neologism, or is at least used on his show. If nobody expands it, delete it as a dicdef. gK 19:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Right now it's deleted (by RickK as patent nonsense), so it can't be expanded. It doesn't seem to be invented by Howard Stern, though it is a word used on his show. Deleting an article because Howard Stern uses the word is obviously ridiculous. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Looking into this, the earliest reference I can find is 11/15/1999, attributed to Howard Stern, so maybe he did coin the term. anthony (see warning) 02:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I remember this being a popular thing to say in high school, and I can think of several people to whom it would apply now...but, I don't think this could be anything more than a dictionary definition. The previous content pretty much said it all, so I vote to keep it deleted. Adam Bishop 21:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It is expandable, just like geek or nerd or asshole. If we delete this then we should delete them too. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It is far less known than those terms. --Improv 21:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Which just makes it more likely that someone is going to look it up. anthony (see warning) 22:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Expandable. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, this made me laugh out loud. I nominated it as a speedy for lack of content and neologistics. If it's connected to Howard Stern and can be suitably expanded, I'll change my vote to keep. Right now, it stands as a good-natured delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your vote. It is connected to Howard Stern, in that he uses the term, and it can be suitably expanded. So why isn't your vote already keep? anthony (see warning) 02:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded. Needs to establish that it's more than just the typical attempted neologism we get here, but that it has some basis for notability. --Michael Snow 20:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN —siroχo 10:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, not notable. --Improv 15:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictdef, no potential to become encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears to me that it could become encyclopedic by the usual process — people adding to it and refining each other's work. The Wiki method should be effective on all articles, even those about the term "butterface". Factitious 06:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete dictdef Mozzerati 21:40, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
  • Delete Search in Google Groups for butterface yields 875 hits, fairly impressive since other things being equal Google Groups typically returns about 1/5 as many hits as (the usual) Google web search. Search in Groups for butterface -stern yields 488 hits, showing that Stern is playing a role in popularizing it but that it has an existence outside his orbit. In borderline cases I am influenced by the quality, thoroughness, and scholarship behind an article as well as the topic. I would probably vote to keep a good article on this topic. But I vote to delete this one. Some bad articles are seeds of good articles, some are not. This one is not. There could be an encyclopedic article on the topic "butterface," but this article itself does not have the potential of becoming encyclopedic. The word should be covered in our articles on slang, Stern, or whatever if it isn't already. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that there could be a good article on the topic "butterface", but that the article Butterface cannot become a good article on that topic? Factitious 06:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think his point is that an article has to be great from the very beginning. We can't wait for it to expand, because that might take too long, and ruin the respect people have for the encyclopedia. By this rationale we might never have had an encyclopedia in the first place, I mean, just look at the first version of Al Gore, but I think the argument is that we've grown big enough that we don't have to be a wiki any more, and should abandon the principles which made us what we are today. Maybe we could move this article to the talk page until it's great, though. This way it doesn't reflect on Wikipedia negatively, and it can still be easily expanded. Were this page truly about finding consensus, that's something that could be discussed. anthony (see warning) 14:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Yep, I'm saying that the more obscure and unimportant the topic itself is, the better the article ought to be on first appearance. By my rationale, though, a stub on Al Gore should be kept because, since Al Gore is quite notable, there is a large pool of people interested in expanding that stub and it is likely to grow. An article on a relatively obscure topic, such as Claude Chappe, however, should be decent—not great, but something like three decent paragraphs—when submitted. Reread Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. Stubs are supposed to get expanded fairly quickly. Stubs in themselves are not valuable. Their value is as a means of producing an article. Not all stubs are equally valuable. This is not a question of logic-chopping. I can write the words "Chapter 1" on a page and it has the potential of becoming a great novel. In a literal sense it "can become" a great novel. But it is not a valuable page. Collaboration and incremental expansion works well on topics that are notable enough to draw on a pool of collaborators. For very obscure topics, the article should start life in a sorta-kinda-half-decent state, because it will be a long time before someone else comes along to improve it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) P. S. Take a look at the history of Claude Chappe. Fifteen edits in two years, and the article absolutely was improved by the collaborative process—but it started out as a perfectly respectable article when first submitted. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Thank you for that explanation. It makes sense, and I agree that it's not logic-chopping. But considering that the article has already been expanded since the beginning of this discussion, would you agree that it's now sufficiently "sorta-kinda-half-decent"? I agree that it's not yet a great article, of course. Factitious 05:50, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
            • It has indeed expanded since it was created. My view is that it's borderline, and my mental coin-flip happened to land on the "delete" side. If my mood had been different I might have voted the other way. I feel very strongly that it just does not matter very much whether this article is in Wikipedia or not. I don't see any terribly good reason to change my vote, so I'm leaving it as it is, out of inertia or stubbornness or sales resistance. If it does get worked up into a decent article, than, well, I will have misjudged. That's why I'm glad that I am not the only person who votes in these things. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Personally I am very hesitant to work on articles which are on VfD. Rather than risk having my work deleted, I prefer to wait until the VFD period is over and then recreate the article in a better form. That this article can easily be expanded is obvious from the fact that there is much more information right here on the delete discussion than there is in the actual article. I think a stub article should be given at least a week to grow before being listed on VfD for that reason. As for stubs getting expanded very quickly, I should note that Al Gore remained in that original state for 9 months. One year later it looked like this [33]. Maybe things have changed, and we should abandon the principles that made Wikipedia what it is today, but if we had deleted articles just because they weren't likely to be significantly expanded in even a year's time, we likely wouldn't have a Wikipedia. anthony (see warning) 14:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • And yes, in the case of this article, it was deleted within minutes. It wasn't even given a week to grow. anthony (see warning) 14:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 00:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Dictdef. Delete, possibly move to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 12:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN Passw0rd 14:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing actually wrong with it. We have plenty of other articles on slang terms, and though this is shorter than I'd like, the correct way to fix that on a Wiki is by expanding the article, not deleting it. What do we stand to gain by getting rid of the information? Factitious 06:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: joke, dicdef, ephemeral. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Why do you consider the article to be a joke? I was under the impression that it was factual and serious. Factitious 20:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging it to Mullet (haircut) as an editorial decision. - Bobet 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skullet

A neologism: a skullet is like a mullet but bald on top. Tagged for merge, but without sources not worth merging. The section into which it is proposed to be merged is also unsourced. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 23 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. Nandesuka 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Brown

This is a fan hack. I'm pretty sure we mostly don't list those for notability reasons. It says it's widely known as the most popular Pokémon ROM hack, but provides no evidence of this and that isn't exactly a notable category by itself. It gets about 1500 Google hits, but most seem to just be lists of hacked ROMS and the number-two ranked one was the Wikipedia article. Considering the article has no categories and there are few links to it from other articles, this is impressive. Ace of Sevens 11:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I decided to look into this by Googleling "pokemon brown;" over 2 million results came in, put obviously these are not all about this supposedly "famous" ROM hack. (when you put it in quotes, the number reduces to around 1.5k) The first result was this site, in which Pokemon Brown is on a list of ROM hacks. So, it exsists at least... but that was probably obvious anyway.
  • There are some fansites here and there that talk about it, so within the ROM hacking and [possibly] Pokemon communities, it is known... well-known? Known at least. Unfortunetly, notability within communitiesis difficult to research unless you're part of the group youself (in this case, the more advanced Pokemon/ROM hacking communities).
  • Meh. Delete as non-notable software. I'm still open to mind-changers, however. (not that it'll really matter; no one can be swayed when it comes to AFD) I commend you for your efforts KBM, so you get a weak keep out of me, but a keep nonetheless. It's too bad though; there are too many delete votes in to really make a difference now. I think with some cleanup it could be better... short... but better. -- gakon5 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a person that spent some of his life in ROM-hacking, I'd say that every finished and standalone hack is notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meaning that we should have as much verifiable knowledge as possible. If I'm a new person to Pokemon ROM hacks and wish to find out more about them, then I don't have to know about Zophar's domain. All I need is to come here and search for it. That's why there should be a common page about all GB/GBC/GBA hacks (like this one for NES) but single notable hacks like Pokemon Brown also deserve to have its page. xyzman 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Hello, im the creator of this hack. Aparently your having problems with notability. Let me explain something, I had a website 2 years ago when I released this hack, and it had this hack on it. I kept track of the downloads and the downloads were high, because this wasnt any ordinary hack. This was a hack that I put almost 2 years work into, and I'm working on a sequal right now thats almost 3 years in development. This hack is HIGHLY notable in the Pokemon Rom hacking Community. Just ask anyone if they know of a Pokemon Brown, and most of them will say yes. Google hits mean nothing, especially since people have made jokes about different versions of Pokemon games like "Pokemon poo Brown" or some sort. Fan sites have listed this hack as downloadable, and if that isnt notible, I don't know what is. And if this gets deleted, I've lost all faith in this site, because aparently if this would have to be deleted, and all articles shared the same fate as this in which they had question of notability, the only 2 articles that would be up on this site would be Georg W. Bush and Paris Hilton, go figure. And honestly, have you all actually tried PLAYING the hack instead of judging it as another hack? Although I do agree this article needs to be spruced up a bit. User:Koolboyman 1:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    This hack is HIGHLY notable in the Pokemon Rom hacking Community. Source? Dark Shikari 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look around at Pokecommunity.com's rom hacking boad. You have to register in order to view it. They have a hacking section where most of the hackers hang out and talk. Do a search on Pokemon Brown and you'll find result 'o plenty. User:Koolboyman 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not official, not notable, not widely used, not encyclopaedic, not suitable. Proto::type 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As above. +Fin 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no published sources. Fails WP:V. Recury 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all the sympathies to the hack author. Even if it's "notable within ROM hacking community", and you could prove that it exists or something, I believe the threshold of inclusion for all kinds of mods or hacks is very high - in this case, just show that yes, tons and tons of people play Pokémon ROM hacks, and yes, everyone who does that has played this one. Where's the claims of bazillions of downloads? Where's the game mag article? In short, sorry, no Wikipedia article until I read about this thing from Pelit or their website. Meanwhile, this could warrant an external link somewhere or something =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Magazines dont really mention ROM hacks last time I checked. Anyways, like I said in the previous comment, search pokecommunity.com, and you need to register first. Pokecommunity has the highest ammount of Pokemon ROM hackers, and do a simple search and you'll find lots of results for Pokemon Brown. And ask around if you want, people will know about it. I'm not going on an internet scavenger hunt to find out every site that mentions my specific hack, because pokecommunity.com is enough proof alone. Unfortunetly the site I hosted in 2004 is down now so I dont have _proof_ that it was downloaded that much, but it was. Not everyone who downloads it is going to comment on it. User:Koolboyman 5:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Smells like spam. Ryūlóng 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' How is this even remotly close to spam? THINK before you type next time alright, your just making yourself look bad.

User:Koolboyman 22:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep seems notableenough, we wont run out of room, alternatively have a section on the pokemon page featuring such hacks... Owwmykneecap 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a list of webstie that mention MY SPECIFIC HACK, Pokemon Brown that I just scanned over with Google.

I also did some searches for my hack, and here are a bunch of results of people mentioning my hack: http://chronotron.wordpress.com/my-web-presence/ http://www.zophar.net/hacks/gb.html http://www.romhacking.net/hacks/134/ http://www.trsrockin.com/glitchcity.html http://www.zophar.net/tech/files/gbpointers.txt http://saybox.co.uk/shout.php?action=display&user=coolcracker http://emu.panoramainternetu.pl/content.html?cs=inf_a&catid=%7C7%7C1%7C4%7C&id_a=421159 http://www.dgemu.com/gameboy-list--desc-downloads.html http://www.dohgames.com/bb/archive/index.php/t-100.html http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8KNH6U0WwL4J:www.pokemonstation.com/forums/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D4015%26sid%3D05def15bd20cd042293f34ac481cec13+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=38 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:SPWpQnx55MkJ:www.nhacks.com/archive/index.php/t-4482.html+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=40 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:yBGkEUoqcBgJ:gizwic.com/board/thread.php%3Fid%3D5885+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=50 http://www.emuboards.com/invision/lofiversion/index.php/t13138.html http://forums.supercheats.com/topic.php?topic=11761&page=2 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7jWtqp-Au48J:www.mxemu.com/romshare.php%3Fkeyword%3DPokemon+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=61 http://forums.supercheats.com/topic.php?topic=72&page=1 Quote from there: "their not fake, they exist but I'm tellin you their so boring.......just stick with the origanal nintendo games, except pokemon brown, that was the only fun hacked game!" http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:3s6KBUCQPCYJ:planetemu.net/%3Fsection%3Droms%26dat%3D191%26action%3Dshowrom%26id%3D209973+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=67 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:h0-emkUiUAYJ:www.zemula.net/forums/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D1003%26mode%3Dlinear%26view%3Dfindpost%26p%3D5452+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=69 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:klPoQi4zknoJ:www.revolutioncommunity.info/forum/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dlastpost%26t%3D95+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=89 Quote: "The only Completed Hack that are worth playing and is amazing is Pokemon Brown Made by Coolboyman for Red Version. There are someother hacks that have been made which are Ok but not that good. You can always Download a Demo of a Hack that is being made. Get them Here ---- http://pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=14636" http://pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=1162 - My first mention of the hack, that alone has 1,710 views. http://www.spielerboard.de/archive/index.php/t-121727 http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/search.php?kind=a&terms=ForteMaster http://mx.msnusers.com/kagomesadenocrom/romsgameboycolor.msnw http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:idYQ6jCD_qkJ:www.ultimateddl.com/23.php+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=119 http://cartmic.8bit.co.uk/midhacks/hacks.htm http://pokigry.w.interia.pl/hacki.htm

Is this enough proof of nobility, or do you want me to get more websites?? User:Koolboyman 22:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn Okay, that's good enough for me. None of them are particularly major sites, but there are enough to make up for that. There still need to be references in the actual article, though. Ace of Sevens 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You did check the sites listed? Koolboyman was quite literal that he found a bunch of sites that mention his hack, all are warez equivalents of catalog listings, and most say nothing more than give the download link. Tychocat 06:26, 28 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 article was deleted by User:Wiki alf on request from the origninating author --Ezeu 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings

Much as I love Red Alert 2, WP:NOT a strategy guide. the wub "?!" 11:20, 23 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencerport High School

Incomplete nomination - completing. (no vote) ViridaeTalk 11:26, 23 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 08:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Man Series

Article says "not available in shops," Besides 3 WP entries only one forum entry for the "series." Oh and a hotmail e-mail for ordering. Definately nn. Delete --Richhoncho 11:43, 23 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 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanic, Bernard

Autobiographical vanity article by processing engineer from Australian winemaker. 5 unique Ghits, can't find anything to verify the claims made in the article, which don't look particularly significant anyway. Oldelpaso 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Contributor is Bzanic which obviously lends itself to WP:VAIN. I get only three Ghits, which lends itself to non-notability. One of the three hits is a note written by Zanic to confirm a subscription. The other two go to an Australian agency called CSIRO, and it's here that I find factual problems. The article states Zanic implemented improvements to the Australian wine industry as a whole. The CSIRO website indicates that agency provided algorithms and processes to Zanic, which he is very pleased by. Zanic's testimonial here also states that production improvements occurred for the Southcorp winery, identifies Zanic as a Southcorp employee, and shows no indication of any industry-wide improvements in wine production. In the article, Zanic takes credit for industry-wide implementation of the Toyota Production System/Lean Manufacturing System. I would be willing to entertain the notion that an industry-wide production improvement would be notable, but I would need far better sourcing and citations to credit this to Zanic. Tychocat 08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nowhere near WP:BIO, also cites no sources and is unverifiable. --Wine Guy Talk 20:10, 28 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. — Jul. 25, '06 [14:00] <freak|talk>

Too Little Too Late

Unverified. Search on google/google news and official website turns up nothing. Appears to be completely made up. Crumbsucker 12:04, 23 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 and merge. Srose (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FriendsReunited.co.uk

Duplicate article (though not duplicate text) for Friends Reunited. Suggestion for merge already posted. Suggestion made on creating editor's talk page. Proposing for Merge, redirect and delete Fiddle Faddle 12:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, AfD isn't for merging articles. If you intent is to merge the two articles, then withdraw the nomination and merge the articles. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not check this thoroughly enough. I did a search for FriendsReunited without the space and wrongly assumed that as it wasn't forwarded to friends reunited that the articlke didn't exist. It's not anything I'm particularly interested in. Thought there was no article so I wrote it. There is differerent bits of info in both so I assume they need a merge... I am still a fairly new editor. Once I figure out how to create REDIRECTS and learn to be a bit more thorough with different spellings etc, I will be a bit more productuve! haha!! My article substance came from the ABOUT US page at friendsreunited.co.uk and also the Dec 2005 BBC article about the sale of the company. So... incorporate the missing facts? --TheLedHead 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this may be speedied, then? Fiddle Faddle 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to see it speedied? I thought you wanted to see the info merged? --TheLedHead 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually the process form here to deletion takes enough time for a merge to happen. I should have been more specific. Merge ahead, turn it into a redirect, say here you have done so and this will wither on the vine Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. all done. I merged the relevant bits. fixed the many random commas and some other poor grammar. so delete THIS one.. whoever does that... ha! As the creator.. can I delete it? --TheLedHead 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Page is now a redirect and merged into parent article. OK, I'm bound to have done something wrong here, but no action necessary except Speedy Close Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi TheFarix. I've done my best. I did not put the article up for deletion, but I havce merged the relevant info and the original article is much better than it was factually and gramatically. If you are admin then delete away. I am new... doing my best! The article is definitely improved anyway. Thanks - --TheLedHead 13:00, 23 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 Sunnydale Syndrome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale-syndrome

This topic is much covered in more detail at Sunnydale Syndrome and thus the hyphenated article should be deleted RicDod 12:32, 23 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 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringlet (haircut)

Delete Dicdef - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:53, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schentrup method

original research Yellowbeard 13:10, 23 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 three. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Beyond (album)

A band without a WP article is unlikely to have a notable album. Nareek 13:32, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Cove (camp)

Not notable camp. Spam? Advertising? ViridaeTalk 13:40, 23 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 claim to fame is that it catapulted the author into the web spotlight, which it obviously didn't. - Bobet 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Stories

Not-notable book from a non-notable author. 21 Google hits for "Sadie Stories" Zilba (the author's last name). Article reads like an advertisement and no sources are given for any of the reviews. The only "sources" don't seem very reliable. Metros232 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CITE, WP:NOT (advertisment), and is very poorly written, not wikified (and won't be without serious, and I mean serious, work), as well as WP:V and WP:CORP to a degree. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiq_Society

A high-IQ group with twelve members according to the article. Nothing found on Google News; WP and mirrors predominate in first page of ghits. Unreferenced and apparently unverifiable, passing vain and rather advertorial spamcruft which makes Mega Society look like Mensa. For those reasons I suggest delete is in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclades Corporation

doesn't appear to be notable. Reads like an advertising puff piece. Spartaz 13:58, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sound compression engine

Quotes from the article : "no files have yet been successfully encoded" and "Please email Paolo devil @ ..." are convincing to suggest fails WP:NN and a few other things. Delete. --Richhoncho 13:58, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duxbury Pier Light

Empty article. A picture and two links does not an article make. Spartaz 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I think this article can be expanded; there are a lot of very short geography articles. It just needs some T-L-C and attention. Srose (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did some research and added some information. In the process of researching, I discovered that this lighthouse does has claim to fame - it was the first lighthouse in the US to use a caisson spark plug. In light of this discovery, I change my vote to Keep.Srose (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Srose and the expanded information. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic landmark. BigE1977 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination for deletion was not about the notability of the lighthouse; it was about the article having no text at all, even after it had been proposed for deletion and the PROD notice had been removed. As it has now been made into a sub-stub, it no longer qualifies for deletion as an empty article, but it still is a pitiful excuse of an article for a lighthouse. Extant lighthouses in the United States are very well documented in books and on-line, and deserve better coverage in Wikipedia than this one has gotten so far. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:57, 27 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 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Suhay

no sources and no real indication of notability Spartaz 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep her first book Tell me a story seems to be notable and widely reviewed. The CNN review is quoted on its Amazon page under the Editorial Reviews section. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be WP:VAIN Creator of article is User:Fableauthor which seems to be Lisa herself. I've asked for clarification on her talk page, but have no response. The only substantive subsequent edit was wikification. I think much of this should be userfied, but I do think an article about Lisa Suhay is valid (notable and verifiable), but it should be written by someone else. Brian 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Changed delete to keep as I just received confirmation from Lisa Suhay that it is not autobiography. Another person posted the article from Lisa's account (which is why it appeared to me to be autobiograph). I agree it is notable and verifiable - my only concern was the possible autobiography. Thanks. Brian 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - there is an encyclopaedic article in here trying to get out. However, WP is full of articles kept in the vain hope that they will get cleaned up and we don't need another. Delete, and someone can start again if they wish. BlueValour 20:04, 29 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, Mailer Diablo 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I confirmed that it's not autobiography and changed my opinion (see above) at this time there's no reason to delete - this article should be kept in my opinion 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)btball
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Rozen

borderline notability & unsourced Spartaz 14:16, 23 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 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heshmat Sanjari

one line does not an article make. Unsourced and no indication of notability Spartaz 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venue: St John's, Smith Square
Dates: 26th September 2004 19:30
Conductor: Farnoosh Behzad
Music: Khachaturian (Three Dances from Gayaneh)
Music: Heshmat Sanjari (Deep Horizon)

Supervised Ahmad Pejman Dlyons493 Talk 18:39, 23 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 08:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolwiki

article about a defunt website adds nothing of value Spartaz 14:25, 23 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. - brenneman {L} 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Moore

A majority at DRV overturned the previous keep closure for this article as improper, but there was not sufficient consensus for outright deletion. Hence, pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, this article is relisted for new consideration at this AfD. Please consult the DRV discussion before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Milt Hinton award and NARAS musicianship nomination, as well as the numerous articles in the likes of Bass Player Magazine, Creative Loafing, The Memphis Flyer and main Memphis newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, pass WP:MUSIC, The article needs to be cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The artist may or may not fulfill WP:MUSIC guidelines, however the article was created specifically for soapboxing by sock puppets who are likely to return after deletion review is finished. OSU80 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC substantially. Being nominated and then failing to be awarded the NARAS musicianship is not noteworthy. Also, the NARAS musicianship appears to be a local, not a national award[40], so even less impressive. The Milt Hinton scholarship is not a major award[41] - it offers $1,000 for some private tuition for young bassists[42]. Media coverage is underwhelming - the biggest title claimed is the Memphis Commercial Appeal which has a 2 paragraph review of an album by one of its local boys[43]. The Memphis Flyer mention is just his name in a list of nominees for the best local bassist (the NARAS award) with 5 other names[44]. The Bass Player Magazine mentions are very short reviews ranging from two lines to [45] to 4-5 lines[46]. The regional North Carolina website Creative Loafing gives him 8-9 lines[47]. Other reviews cited by his site are of similar length and calibre[48]. The interviews are longer (well, they're interviews) - but they seem to be for non-mainstream websites and internet forums (the international insitute for bassists says its just a website popular amongst bassists, not an actual institute[49]), not printed magazines or well-known websites; some of these seem pretty obscure[50]. Bwithh 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we differ on the significance of these awards and nominations. Since the Milt Hinton award was recorded in Bass Player Magazine, my feeling is that it must be of some considerable significance, enough for it to be termed "major". Your mileage may vary.
    • I'm not one to insist on a very high bar for inclusion in Wikipedia because I think that this would result, to take the current example, in patchy coverage of professional jazz musicians who, like Moore, achieve a level of recognition without much commercial success. If people might read about someone and come to Wikipedia for informationm, then we should probably write about them. I'm inclined to the view that Wikipedia's purpose isn't to describe only those people a lot of us already know about; I know this isn't a universally held view. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the evidence for Moore achieving a noteworthy level of non-commercial recognition. As for the scholarship, it is much smaller and less well known than many university scholarships/fellowships/best-of-class prizes. Bwithh
    • I'm not concerned with "noteworthiness". We really aren't in the business of saying "this person is worthy, that person is not." As I suggest above, I think the criterion should be: is someone likely to read about this person somewhere and want to come to Wikipedia to learn more, and if they do can we tell them more than they already know?" --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a search engine; its an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collectionm of information. As a matter of policy, many useful categories of information are excluded - how-to's, recipes, quotation lists, the Yellow Pages etc, never mind more obscure terms that people might want to look up. Bwithh 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree completely with the policy that Wikipedia isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information." But here we're talking about an article about a professional musician. I just don't think the policy as stated means what you seem to think it means. Articles about professional musicians are very much the kind of thing one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability exists to service WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WP:V and WP:NPOV are well served in this article; by that metric this article deserves to stay. As a well-written, fairly well-sourced article, it does not in any way diminish Wikipedia to include. For that matter, depending on the status of the label he published his albums on (M.M.P. ring a bell for anyone?), he may very well meet WP:MUSIC, with regard to the following: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)," or "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.". Captainktainer * Talk 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MMP stands for "Moore Music Productions", which seems to have been the name of Moore's personal label, Blue Canoe, for several years. Although Moore says he was a session musician, I have been unable to locate any session credits (this isn't surprising). --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for clearing that up, Tony. Know anything about Root Cellar Productions, which seems to be the label for his third album? Captainktainer * Talk 19:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Out of 17,379 CD reviews on allaboutjazz.com, there is a single hit for MMP[51], 5 for Blue Canoe (3 of them are records by Joseph or him and his band). Root Cellar is not listed[52]. Root Cellar appears to be a custom digital recording studio[53] - this is the first hit on google - not a record label. Oh, and I totally disagree with the idea that notability is easily dismissable exists only as to service WP:V etc. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, though I know some people would like to see it do so Bwithh 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of fact, "notability" isn't Wikipedia policy, while Verifiability is. Moreover you will search in vain for "non-notable" as a deletion criterion in the Deletion policy. It is possible that you have been misled on these matters. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I do know that notability is a guideline, not a policy while WP:V is etc. but notability is not something which is simply overriden by verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. And thanks very much for being condescending but WP:NN discusses non-notability, noting that it is a controversial topic b ut is a frequently used argument for deletion on AFD, and that it is often associated with the formal policy, WP:NOT. Bwithh 20:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't mean to be condescending, I'm sorry. But it seemed to me that you were trying to imply that notability concerns override all others. My view is that this is an interesting bass player who has been around for a decade as a recording artist. Not quite Jaco Pastorius, but certainly someone whose name does tend to crop up in electric bass and double bass circles. There is enough material to make an interesting an useful article (though I don't think the article it quite there yet in terms of quality) and in my opinion that's really all we need. The "notability" concept is sometimes useful, for instance, in dealing with garage bands and high school bands, This fellow isn't one of those and, in my opinion, it would be inappropriate to exclude his article from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable artist. --InShaneee 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once, again, I argue that this article be deleted. The various records/CDs/albums that this artist has been published under are all homebrew studios or they were never published at all (Blue Canoe Records is a digital record label/he was published directly to the internet). It doesn't appear that he passes any of the WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion.
    • He hasn't charted a hit on any national music chart (unless one counts his eMusic rating among other artists that aren't included on Wikipedia).
    • He has no gold records.
    • He has not gone on an international or national tour.
    • None of his albums have been released on a major label, or one of the notable indie labels.
    • He was not part of any other band that passes WP:MUSIC.
    • He is not the prominent representative of the music scenes in Memphis, Knoxville, or Atlanta.
    • He has not won a major music award.
    • He has not placed in a major music competition.
    • He has not performed music for a work of media that is notable (the closest to this is the fact that his music has been used during the local weather segments on the Weather Channel).
    • He has not been placed in rotation at any national radio network.
    • And he has not been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.
  • This, combined with the rampant soapboxing, including adding this artist to the articles on Bass guitar [54], Fretless guitar [55], his birth to 1969 in music [56], among other pages by Ms Frieske, and her proven and suspected sockpuppets stands that the artist and the executive producer were using Wikipedia to promote Joseph Patrick Moore, not unlike all of the musical artists who think because they put themselves on myspace that they can advertise themselves on Wikipedia, too. Ryūlóng 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some consideration, Keep. The subject is a borderline case--neither a slam-dunk keep, nor an obvious case of a non-performing garage band with delusions of grandeur. In such cases, I tend to lean keep; there is enough material for an WP:NPOV and WP:V article; Tony's proposal is a good start (though I'd remove any reference to the Grammys, the local NARAS chapter awards aren't referred to as such for a good reason). The attempt at sockpuppetry by the part of the folks at Blue Canoe (and WP:VANITY in general) can often swing my vote the other way (which is why I listed this in the first place); however, the apparent malfeasance by a Wikipedia editor in creating an {{imposter}} account I consider a far worse violation--Karen Frieske is doing what she's paid to do, promote her label and the label's artists. There is no excuse whatsoever for impersonating other users, or trying to frame them for sockpuppetry. Thus, holding my nose over all the BS which has gone on here, I'll vote keep. Further, I repeat my suggestion that folks from Blue Canoe refrain from editing the article directly, or linking to it elsewhere. --EngineerScotty 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. In borderline notability cases for dead or long-retired musicians, there's reason to lean keep, since Wikipedia is an important place to preserve historical info and pointers to the remaining documentation as they fade from memory and the easily-locatable info dries up. For borderline-notable still-active musicians supposedly on the rise, delete without hesitation, especially when the slightest whiff of WP:VAIN or WP:SPAM attaches to the article. If they're really on the rise, their notability should be increasing and not decreasing, and they can be re-entered once they're no longer borderline. Notoriety for musicians being bankable and with every Wikipedia page contributing hugely to Google rank, there's relentless pressure to ram self-promoting music articles into the wiki, tilting the NPOV of the whole encyclopedia and worsening its spam problem. That should in no way be encouraged.

    The above is on general principle. In this particular instance, there was apparent egregious sockpuppetry from marketroids at the "label" that released this guy's recordings. The logic is "Hey, if this spamming works, I get valuable exposure. If it doesn't work, the article gets tossed and I'm no worse off than before. Plus, the deletion process might waste a lot of their time, but I'm getting paid for this, so there's no loss for me. There's no disincentive whatsoever, so go for it!". There has to be a "loss" branch and so if the socking is confirmed, not only should the article be deleted, but any music articles having to do with this "label" or its performers should be banned from Wikipedia for at least a year, regardless of notability. Phr (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That doesn't strike me as a sensible way to build an encyclopedia. If people put advertising material and promotional language into an article, remove it. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is eminently sensible. The number of people and organisations that might want to use Wikipedia for self-promotion runs into tens or hundreds of millions, Wikipedia has a limited number of housekeeping editors, who have limited time, and any article can be seen by hundreds of people before anyone decides to clean it up as most readers never edit. Landolitan 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an argument for deleting all articles on obscure subjects. I am happy that it has seldom prevailed as an argument for deletion on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As written, the general part about deleting semi-notables whose notability is supposedly increasing was specifically about musician articles. It can be generalized to articles about some other types of people, companies, and products, but certainly not to every subject. And it doesn't apply at all to borderline-notability subjects which are fading away in popular awareness (e.g. deceased subjects), for which documentation should be preserved before it is lost. I do lean towards keeping those types of articles. Phr (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to me, that the proposal to block WP:VANITY violators and bar their pet subjects is, ahem, interesting--but entirely irrelevant to this AFD. --EngineerScotty 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The suggestion is to ban blatant abusers who try to game Wikipedia for profit (in this case by attempted ballot stuffing using sockpuppets by management at the record label), just like we ban blatant vandals. It's way too drastic a remedy for run-of-the-mill vanity editing. I agree that an AfD isn't the right place for that discussion, maybe I can separate out that part of the comment. Phr (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable for reasons listed above. He has more to gain from the existence of an article about him than Wikipedia or its readers have. Landolitan 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and vanity --Awiseman 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway, figure skates by WP:MUSIC guideline. Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh's thorough research. Non-notable musician, fails WP:NOT self-promotion/advertising. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 27 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. --Ezeu 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Deathmount

Unreleased software, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, and the only source on this is an unofficial website with an alexa ranking of 1,000,000+, which is not a reliable source.

Note that there are 20+ other wikipedia articles in the category Cancelled_Virtual_Boy_games which I will likely bundle together and nominate for deletion in a group if we have consensus that this should be deleted Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - clearly not worth keeping Spartaz 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I haven't nominated the others at this point, it occurs to me that we might just combine all of these into one "cancelled virtual boy games" article, many of them are basically one line articles. Something to consider. --Xyzzyplugh 14:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into an article on cancelled VB games per the suggestion above. Irrelevant side note: according to the article the game would have cost the yen equivalent of about $70 US. No wonder the Virtual Boy flopped! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, cancelled game software for a system that was a flop, not notable. (There's a category for this???! Delete all with extreme prejudice!) --Wine Guy Talk 20:27, 24 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, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 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 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent M (band)

yet to release an album. Clearly NN Spartaz 14:30, 23 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 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life Alert

advertising pure and simple and doesn't appear notable Spartaz 14:55, 23 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, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above: I would recommend leaving the 'I've fallen and I can't get up' article where it is. It was created years ago as an example of a catch phrase, and the fact that one of these sorts of companies popularized the phrase was completely secondary to who said it, when, and examples of its use. I could certainly see 'Emergency response bracelets' being a 'See also' on that page, though. Skybunny 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added this article to Category:Companies of the United States. There is strong precedent for the inclusion of articles about notable companies, and as this company is the most-well known manufacturer of these devices I believe the article is keepworthy. ONUnicorn 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. if this were a real attempt at being encyclopedic, it'd be a generalized article about the devices in general. The one mention of consumer complaints (as an external link) doesn't come nearly to any sort of level of fairness or openness about the topic. Being "best known" (though this is as yet an undocumented claim) doesn't matter in terms of the article being pure advertisement. It's all about one company and its services. Tychocat 10:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but expand Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 13:34, 5 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. Wickethewok 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Messages

Non-notable company; fails WP:CORP. MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:02, 23 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, Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 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 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PipelineDeals.com

Not notable company, 6 employees, 119 unique ghits. Created by Pipeline Nick (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions are this article and internal links to it. Note that the founder of the company is Nick Bertolino... Can you smell the spam? Pascal.Tesson 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 28 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 delete - author request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark Insights, Inc., Aardvark Insights Project Tracker

Non-notable company, Googling for full name returns only the company's website, "Aardvark Insights" only 3 hits, zero indication of notability per company guidelines. Also nominating the page for the equally non-notable software produced by the firm, which also fails software guidelines by a mile. Google for the software's full name again brings up only the company's own website. Article on the company was deprodded without comment by articles' creator. Kimchi.sg 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for Inclusion of Articles Hi, I appreciate your desire to keep Wikipedia free of spam. In writing these articles, I've tried to keep inline with Wikipedia guidelines by providing unbiased and objective information on the topics. We are not trying to push our warez; rather to explain the rationale for the brand new software tool (which is also free for personal use). There are links to the page from other articles in Wikipedia, although I noticed that the search engine does not yet reliably show them, perhaps it just needs some time to re-index new submissions. The same reasoning applies to the google search.

In any case, if the administrators feel that these articles violate Wikipedia guidelines, so be it. Our intent was to provide unbiased information about a new (and innovative) tool, and we tried to follow the rules.

Comment - Thanks for participating in this discussion and for making such a rational, informative response. The biggest single problem right now is that of "notability" (technically a guideline, not a policy) because the company and its products are indeed "brand new". Once they've been around for a while and have been mentioned by other sources, then it would be more reasonable to present the articles. One of our primary goals is to provide "encyclopedic content" which generally excludes "cutting edge" companies and products, at least until they are somewhat established and reported on. If , for example, a major newspaper were to do a story about your products, then we would certainly include an article at that point. Thanks again for participating :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with the Listings Then? - Well, I understand this logic, although I somewhat disagree with it. What is the purpose of providing listing of software products in wikipedia? My understanding of a communal process that allows everyone to edit an article should take care of fradulent or incorrect articles, at least on average. I tried to provide as much clear and concise information. Then again, if the public decides to kill the articles, so be it. ---Andy.goryachev 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There isn't really any problem with the articles themselves; they certainly aren't fraudulent or incorrect. Compared to some of the utter crap that turns up at AFD they're actually well written (In fact, I'm hoping you'll stay on as a contributor here even if these articles don't make it this time). The real issue is with the topic of the articles, their newness and lack of current notability, as well as the inabiblty to offer references (ie, to a newspaper article, trade journal, etc). I hope this helps. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:33, 23 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 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

403_Forbiddena

Japanese rock band, with some google hits, but only in japanese (sorry don't understand it), and a wiki hit in the first positions. The article is not wikified and in bad english. Does this qualify as a 'to be kept' entry? Cantalamessa 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It simply being a badly written article does not constitute a delete. Notability needs to be confirmed, certainly. J Milburn 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 28 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 Cape Sorell, Tasmania Computerjoe's talk 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Sorell Waverider Buoy

non-notable, how many buoys are there in the ocean! Will all of them have articles? I don't think so... —Hanuman Das 16:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merged - I am not prepared to go into a rave or fight over this one. The citeria are pointless on this article's raison d'etre, hope you find something more useful to vote over :)

Anyways, happy editing folks, It is only wikipedia :) So you can go home now! SatuSuro 03:43, 24 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 all - The deletion people seem to be setting the bar for notability too high; people with regional notability can still have encyclopedic articles on them, no matter how uninteresting it may be to people from elsewhere. Also, this discussion was very marred by a persistent sockpuppetteer, who certainly didn't help his cause. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Russell

Note to closing admin: I have just blocked a bunch of strongly suspected sockpuppets of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. There are now some 35 such puppets in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. I've taken the somewhat unusual step of striking their comments now, since they are deliberately creating false impressions during the debate. Some of the deleters appear genuine, so I'll leave the debate to run. Great care needs to be exercised in the closure. -Splash - tk 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like from a series of similar cfuft articles from User:Pressure Thirteen which will be nominated below. The original deletion discussion got a bit out of hand as more and more article were discovered. Adam 1212 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing a few related pages on this vote since they are the same sort of cruft and were all created by the same user, User:Pressure Thirteen

There may be more, but I think I got them all. Adam 1212 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Jim Gardner (broadcaster); delete remainder. They all generally fail the notability hurdles of WP:BIO and, as local broadcasters, are lacking in global merit. In particular, strong delete Wally Kennedy, because his claim of notability is the most minimal (part-time radio anchor). As for Jim Gardner, I feel he has achieved importance, and his article should be retained, primarily for his sponsorship of named scholarships at two major universities and his Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia honors, but also for his length of tenure and long-term participation in Independence Hall festivities on the Fourth of July. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL (unless they are/were regulars at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.. I think the measure of notability of television anchors and reporters is if they are frequently on national network or cable television. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV (and that includes Jim Gardner) then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. JianLi 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All all of these have been merged into one of the following articles: *WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters. As idividuals they are not notable, but as a groups they are and that goes for [[Jim Gardner (broadcaster), too. By the way, the Independence Hall festivities on the Fourth of July is a purely local event with no national coverage, since it is of no national importance. Kramden4700 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All If they were on a nationally or internationally seen channel or network like ABC, CNN, WGN, WNBC, BBC. DW-TV, then they may be notable on their own. The group articles mentioned above seem to be a good solution and a model for how to deal with such people, since as a news team they may have some notability, but as individuals they are not notable, despite the fact that some of them have been on local televison for a few decades or host the local July 4th festivities. Buckner 1986 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, non-notable per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;;
  • If we keep these crufty articles we'll wind up on a slippery slope. What next? The lady who draws the lottery balls? Hey hey, ho ho, this sort of cruft has gotta go! Adam 1212 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't look at every single one of these, but a few of the ones that I spotchecked looked notable enough to keep. For others that are just one-liner "This person is a reporter", I agree, those can be deleted, but should probably be submitted for AfD individually. --Elonka 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Is this AfD a blanket nom for all of the above names, or just for Angela Russell? If the latter, I agree that *her* article can be deleted. I just don't agree with the "Delete all" sentiment. --Elonka 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a blanket nomination. That's why this is the second nomination. The first time around, the original nominator started tacking on extra article mid-stream. That's why that AfD was halted and it was relisted with a full listing at the start. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, if I have to choose between "Keep All", and "Delete All", I'm going to go with "Keep All". There's enough solid verifiable notability on some of them, to justify individual articles. --Elonka 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All All are non-notable per WP:BIO. Cabled Substitution 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all. The blanket nomination is a bit tricky because I could live with keeping the main news anchors Jim Gardner (broadcaster or people with some long history at the station like Robin Mackintosh or Walt Hunter or even Jim O'Brien (reporter) (although even these I would edge in favor of deletion, if only to avoid an unnecessary clogging of the journalist categories). I also slightly say keep Traynor Ora Halftown if only for originality. Let me also make again a point I made in the first discussion: would people arguing for keep also be ready to fight for keeping an article about the substitute traffic reporter of a network in Islamabad? If you answer yes then ok, we'll just agree to disagree. But if you answer no then I think you should reconsider your vote. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Perfectly good articles that provide useful information. That's what encyclopedias are supposed to be about. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tony Sidaway. I see that the usage of "notable" as a synonym for "interesting to me" is rearing its ugly head again: this should be stopped forthwith, please. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect information which might be "locally notable" into one place, otherwise we might as well get rid of all those articles on concepts in higher mathematics which hardly anyone contributing to this page is likely to ever either need or indeed be able to understand. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to User:Tony Sidaway and User:Phil BoswellThere is no reason to keep them all, since all of the bios have been collected into WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters, which preserves the content of the articles, gives it a better context and doesn't waste space with a couple dozen crufty articles. Individually they don't meet WP:BIO, but as collective groups they do. Do you really think that a biography of a fill in local traffic reporter is even of intrest to someone where they are doing the traffic reporting? There are standards, and these people fail to meet them. Non-notable people and higher math concepts are apples and oranges and you really should not compare the two. Those articles actually have some value, these are just pure cruft. Now do you think the bio of every local TV reporter and back up traffic reporter in the world should be on Wikipedia? Adam 1212 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say is true, then why weren't these articles simply converted into redirects to the relevant articles? If the material is elsewhere on Wikipedia, then you really shouldn't be wasting our time trying to stamp out multiple copies, but rather simply make an edit redirecting the article to the central version. It just doesn't make sense to try to delete an article that woule make a useful redirect. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see the old confusion between information and knowledge is also rearing its ugly head. There are accepted guidelines for the notability of people and disregarding those goes against a wide consensus. Pascal.Tesson 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus that "non-notability" is ground for deletion. In fact, if you ever take the trouble to look at the deletion policy, you will see that it's grounds for merging or, at most, redirect. We're not in the business of destroying information; rather, our mission is to conserve it. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, I know you know better. In fact, the deletion policy says the exact opposite what you say it does. Under "Problems that may require deletion" on the second line of the table is "Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines: [...] WP:BIO (for biographies)". That seems like consensus to me. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All each and every one of them is cruft, but the collected bios pages (WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters) not only have preserved these articles content (or lack there of) but collectively they meet the WP:BIO standards, unlike the individual articles which fail the WP:BIO standards. As mentioned by Pascal.Tesson above - would people arguing for keep also be ready to fight for keeping an article about the substitute traffic reporter of a network in Islamabad? I think not. Just because they are Americans on an American TV station does not make them notable. The only person I think you could argue on any of these TV lists mentioned above who is notable (and also not up for AFD) is Tamala Edwards, who was a network anchor and ABC News White House correspondent - something none of the people up for AFD seem to have going for them. If they all had the same notability as Tamala Edwards, who was a national news anchor, there would be no AFD, but since they don't they should all be deleted. Rekarb Bob 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the contents of all these articles have been merged into relevant parent articles, then we cannot delete them, no matter how much you might wish to (for reasons unknown but, presumably, worthwhile). The use of any content on Wikipedia is predicated on respect for the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not violate copyrights just because we feel like it. I would appreciate if some of the people who took part in merging this content would replace the individual articles with redirects to the appropriate parent articles. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anchors, delete reporters On the one hand, you've got people like Jim Gardner who is a Philadelphia institution a la Jerry Dunphy in LA or Irv Weinstein in Buffalo. On the other hand, you've got field reporters who have been at the 3rd-ranked station for two years. Big difference. Reporters can be redirected to the (callsign here) Reporters article, but anchors are notable enough to stand out on their own. The New York market has a similarly large number of articles about local newscasters that should also go through this process. Kirjtc2 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of these please they provide useful information and are verifiable too Yuckfoo 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:BIO. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mild keep. I have noticed elsewhere on wikipedia that ALL local anchors have been requested to be included in wikipedia. I have myself added none (that I remember), but think that if the wikipedian(s) who made that request are contacted, they might object or try to recreate the article(s) later. I have only seen the one for Angela Russell, and can barely see that she might qualify as notable. Badbilltucker 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Elonka, many of these biographies are notable enough to keep. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you mean WP:BIO notable? In that case I would be happy to know which of these many biographies you're talking about. I'm guessing it's not Matt Pellman. Many keep votes are seemingly ignoring that there are existing guidelines. And before I hear the "it's a guideline it's not policy argument" let me preemptively retort that these guidelines represent a wide consensus. Pascal.Tesson 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All (or at least some) of these people are well-known in at LEAST their local area. We allow local politicians, why not these? In fact, many (or all) of these are MORE well-known than politicians. I don't support deleting them all outright, but perhaps some of them should be deleted. Ram-Man 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:BIO? Adam 1212 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Being well-known in at LEAST their local area seems not to meet the WP:BIO standards the way I read them. JianLi makes a very good point about them not having any national notability by appearing on nationally broadcast channels. I also agree with him/her when he/she says "If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV (and that includes Jim Gardner) then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality." Each and every one of these people is a "two-bit personality" and that includes the people who have been not good enough to escape local TV for decades. Which leads me to wonder are some people voting to keep with their hearts, because they have seen these people for years? I really think that locals should maybe recuse themselves from the discussion since they would be bringing some bias to the table. Irv Weinstein in Buffalo is just as non-notable as the rest of thsese people whose "Degree of celebrity is too localized, parochial and minor." And just because someone claims that they read somewhere on Wikipedia that "all local anchors be included" is meaningless without sourcing it. Cheesehead 1980 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this blanket nomination is fraught with problems. The biggest is that the blanket seems to cover minor reportes who have been with the station a mere few months, which really doesn't make a strong case for notability. And on the other hand, Jim Gardner is also covered which by the sounds of it, he is rather an iconic figure in the local broadcast area, who would pass the bar of notability for me. -- Whpq 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Gardner does not meet the WP:BIO standards just like the rest of these people. Being allegedly well known in your hometown is meaningless unless you have a wider - read national or international - notablity. None, I repeat none of the people listed along with Tom Jolls or Irv Weinstein or the other copule hundred local tv news anchors in the US. These are all cruft articles and need to be deleted. Adam 1212 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why must "widely" be interpreted as national or international? The WP:BIO guidelines specifically state that the criteria you are citing are "not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". The articles for each of the news anchors and reporters need to stand on their own merits. That's why I have a problem with this blanket deletion. It is a blind application of a guideline being interpreted as a rule without due consideration to a bolded admonition not to simply delete when the guidleines are not met. Achieving an iconic status within a locality works for me. For somebody like Jim Gardner, the information is verifiable, and will still be verifiable 10 years from now as he has been inducted as a broadcast pioneer. A keep for me. Applying the same sort of critical review to Angela Russell, there is a different outcome. She may become notable enough in the future, but for now, it's a delete or merge. -- Whpq 19:06, 28 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. - Bobet 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of swimming coaches

POV, unverifiable, no criteria for inclusion. Category:Swimming coaches does the same, and significantly, is up-to-date I@n 16:07, 23 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 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Bull

This is simply a proposal for the logo for the EU's 50th birthday. There may well be hundreds of entries, and none of them belong in an encyclopedia, except for the winner. Nydas 16:34, 23 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 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Agbareia

non-notable. will anyone care about this in 100 years? —Hanuman Das 16:39, 23 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 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Plus (fuel)

non-notable, fails WP:V, WIkipedia is not a crystal ball —Hanuman Das 16:49, 23 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 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references and innuendo in Rocko's Modern Life

This is entirely original research including lots of claims of "possible" references. A typical example of something that is listed there is "The rainbow is a sign of homosexuality, and alludes to the ambiguity of Rocko's sexuality." This article is uncited, unverifiable original research thats far more appropriate to a Geocities page than Wikipedia. Clearly delete. Wickethewok 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has now been rewritten and moved to a new location, which is a big AfD no no. It's completely different. And while it's better, it's not, in my opinion, a good stand alone article topic. It should be covered entirely in the main Rocko's Modern Life article. So, if we vote on the old content, I stand by delete. The new content should be merged. None of it should remain in its own article. And User:Rlk89 needs somebody with experience to explain proper process. GassyGuy 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. You are not prohibited from editing or moving articles on AFD, but it would be better without the double redirects...Kotepho 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously editing articles is fine, but I thought moves were supposed to occur after the fact. My mistake if not. GassyGuy 03:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've conversed with him in his talk page. I don't know, I tried best to explain why what he did was wrong but he thinks he did nothing wrong even with the two removal of the afd tags.--Jersey Devil 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Still no information has been sourced. And the content of the article is still of dubious nature. The content of this article is still going to be "stuff that some Wikipedia editors consider to be sexual innuendo", rather than having any reliable sources. I would go as far as to suggest that the intended content of this article is indeed unverifiable as I don't think there would be any reliable sources containing this information. Wickethewok 03:36, 24 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Gunderson

non-notable conspiracy theorist, fails WP:V —Hanuman Das 16:56, 23 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, Yanksox 06:48, 29 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 DELETE (as vandalism) because "article is obviously ridiculous". TigerShark 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Klanishnikov

possible hoax, only 10 Ghits, almost all WP or WP derived; fails WP:BIO and WP:V —Hanuman Das 17:06, 23 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 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people with piercings

Similar list to List of famous people with tattoos, which I nominated for deletion yesterday. This list looks somewhat better but is still essentially not maintainable. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:25, 28 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 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piggyback art

non-notable neologism applied to/by only one artist. Article itself states "a search of Google with the words 'breen' & 'edbreen' excluded results in a mere 140 results." —Hanuman Das 17:17, 23 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 Dokdo. Mailer Diablo 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dokdo belongs to the Republic of Korea. Telling this to all japanese sons of the bitches! Oki islands is also Korean islands too. North Korea, Please fire one nuclear missile at japan. Both koreas can join forces and launch an invasion on japan with China's help.

Russia can help too by supplying weapons to China and North Korea. Japan is now very weak, just like a ripe fruit ready to be pluck and eat!

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G1). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Homan

WP:OR, just someone who's written something by themselves on wikipedia main namespace. Doesn't need to be here. Delete -Royalguard11Talk 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G1... unsalvageable and incoherent, no meaningful content or history. --Kinu t/c 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, bio without assertion of notability. The subject of the article, who is only mentioned in the last paragraph, is a struggling creative writer with no credits to his name. At best, userfy this and let the author keep it around, but this does not belong in the article-space. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 23 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_23&oldid=65403766"