Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 27

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tizio (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 27 July 2006 (Nitcentral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 26 July 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Hartland

Local, non-notable political figure. To read the article, you'd think he was the most important man born in the last century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Genthree (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep - the facts of his parents' deafness and his youth on election put him just over the line, I think. For future reference, please put AfD nominations at the bottom of the day's listing, rather than the top. BigHaz 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He sounds like a great guy and I wish he was my local politico, but he fails WP:BIO for lacking the multiple non-trivial articles written by third parties - his own blogsite won't count here, methinks. Tychocat 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other two sources (CBS and the "Development Bank of Canada") might qualify him, though. BigHaz 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me. The CBC article mentions Hartland only in passing as one of six winners (it isn't about him), and the bank is about a local award. Tychocat 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep the article is still rife with WP:VAIN violations but he passes WP:BIO, I think, as a city councillor for a territorial capital (and possibly deputy mayor, I can't figure this part out), with some additional notability about youngness and whathaveyou. WilyD 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information on the article is verified. Moreover, it passes WP:BIO. Should not be deleted based soley on non-notable grounds. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep, but I'm convinced solely by the claim that he was the youngest person elected to the city council of a Canadian capital. I think this barely--barely--nudges him into notability. And that's only if you buy the notion that there's something special about the city also being a provincial capital. If this was revised to dial down the WP:VAIN and to place that claim up front, I'd be inclined to let it pass. --Pagana 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep - He seems a little notable. He just makes it with youngest person to be elected to a Canadian capital. But some of the other stuff could be taken out like the theatre part. (Clamster5 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Written by one user, named "Hartland". Not sure any of his accomplishments are notable enough for WP. - grubber 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Whitehorse is a city of less than 20,000, and Hartland has been a city councilman for only 6 years. That he's the answer to a trivia question doesn't vault him over the edge IMO. But who knows, he has such a bright future that we might be making a page soon about Samson Hartland, MP. SliceNYC 20:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
North of 60, City size vs importance changes drastically. For example, Nuuk is only 15000, and Iqaluit is barely 5000, but these are very important cities. WilyD 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for everyone's feedback. I noticed the article has gone through some hefty editing in the last couple of days. If you don't think an elected politician (which having read notability requirements led me to believe this article was acceptable) to a capital city, and the youngest no less (not verifiable via internet) doesn't pass the sniff test, I'd honestly be surprised. I have numerous scanned magazine articles (Profit Magazine, MacLeans, Realm Magazine), newspaper articles and television interviews - and yes they are about me. I didn't realize I required so much verification, but if you want it...just ask. Or just do a google search. I had the theatre section there so people could cross reference with Canadian Deaf Theatre on WP, but if you don't believe that should belong either...As for the deputy mayor question, when you sit on a City Council, everyone alternates deputy mayor responsibilities (when the mayor is absent) at community functions and council meetings themselves. As Whitehorse's deputy mayor I have chaired Whitehorse City Council meetings and greeted HRH when he visited Whitehorse during his northern tour in 2001. Hope this helps you during your deliberation.Hartland
  • Delete - hard one this. The city politican doesn't do it. The Canada's Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award might have but it was a provincial award and there is no indication of how the business has since progressed. Obviously a coming guy who will, I'm sure, break through the notability threshold in time. BlueValour 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't help feeling that the prime motivator is vanity. Sorry. Mallanox 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My motivation is youth. I work with plenty both through my involvement with the Junior Achievement Program of Canada and Rural Partnership Program of Canada. We lack youth leadership in Canada, and mentors to look up to. That was my prime motivation. If the notability is non-encyclopedic, I can accept that. Thank you for allowing me to address this point.--Hartland 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a college application form. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though most all of the content was already in the main article anyway. Wickethewok 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film

Not quite notable enough for its own article - this content can perfectly fit into this --Harrison V 01:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree that you have a lot of good content in this article, but I feel it would be best if it was inserted into San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. I feel that a landmark's references in fiction is not quite notable enough for its own article, and this article is also short enough to easily fit into that article. Thanks for your consideration. --Harrison V 13:27, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalfaro

Obvious advert for a company that fails WP:CORP pretty badly. The google search is a bit misleading because of someone called Oscar Luigi Scalfaro (redirect to that page should be the solution) but the search for "scalfaro + luxury" turns up 332 unique ghits. Their watch business is a bit better known but I still feel that this is too marginal for inclusion. Of course, if there is no consensus for deletion, major editing will be needed to restore NPOV status to the article. Pascal.Tesson 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not you agree with WP:CORP does not change the fact that it reflect consensus and is the accepted guideline by which we have chosen to include on Wikipedia. Note that one concern which makes the need for a slightly overprotective WP:CORP is that Wikipedia could easily be invaded by advertisement such as this one. In any case, if you disagree with WP:CORP then please discuss it in there but please don't make your point by experimenting on this debate. Pascal.Tesson
Appreciate your wise counsel. It is already under discussion there. Thanks - Williamborg 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pascal, I really don't think that Williamborg is being *disruptive* to make a point. The purpose of AfD is to discuss deletion and the rationales behind our points of view. He's doing just that. Please assume that Williamborg issued his keep in good faith, especially on an AfD that you initiated. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums which do not contain their title track

A Nintendude-esque listcruft article, in the vein of "Albums with three words in their name." This list doesn't illustrate any topic; it's just a list of things that coincidentally share an attribute.

This was prodded and prod2'ed, but the prod was removed by the article creator Grutness (talk · contribs) with the uninformative comment "protest." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 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 as vandalistic hoaxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaq me'ov

Hoax Star Wars character -- "Jaq me'ov", get it? get it? I suppose he was defeated in battle by Mike Hunt and Hugh G. Rection. NawlinWiki 01:14, 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. DS 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubervisor

Protologism coined by a blogger. Exactly one relevant google hit: the blog linked to in the article. Note that the IBM S/390 nested virtualization architecture paper linked to doesn't mention the term ubervisor at all. -- Koffieyahoo 01:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dastardlies

Nonnotable unsigned band that has not yet released an album; author removed my speedy tag twice without asserting notabililty. NawlinWiki 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____

Nonnotable is a relative perspective. The Dastardlies are not the first unsigned band to be housed on Wikipedia (ie Long Shot Hero).

Delete - Googling them, I get a few hits, but probably not any more than for any local band. I couldn't find anyone claiming they were especially notable, other than their own site. --Brianyoumans 01:55, 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 as a recreation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical punk genres (second nomination)

Originally tagged for Speedy Deletion per CSD G4 as a recreation of deleted material. This article was previously deleted two days ago (see the previous AfD discussion). Speedy Delete tag was removed by the original editor of the article without explanation. If that is not enough, the article itself expressly states it is contrary to WP:POV with the sentence, "Not everyone in the punk scene will agree or acknowledge all of these as a sub-genre of punk, or even as subgenre in general, such as Clockwork Punk, due to classification being too limitless." If deleted again, the page should be protected. Agent 86 01:38, 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. DS 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vodatec communications

Not Notable; seems to be a small Florida communications services firm --Brianyoumans 01:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Reid

Delete. Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete City council members are inherently non-notable. A mere candidate even less so. Other accomplishments do not rise to the level which would warrant inclusion. --DarkAudit 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, DarkAudit took the words out of my mouth. --Kinu t/c 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An anti-sprawl candidate, like tens of thousands in the US and UK. If he figures out a solution to sprawl that takes away the inherent power differential of money and tax base improvements and manages to get that plan enacted, he might be Man of the Year. Until then, he's a contender, and I'm sure we wish him well. Geogre 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not so much anti-sprawl as he is NIMBY. And NIMBY candidates are a dime a dozen. --Skeezix1000 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. NIMBY could have a listcruft article generated from it that would be deleted for having an infinite set. Geogre 18:46, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuen Mun Road Rock Fall Accident

A big rock hit a bus in Hong Kong eleven years ago and killed the driver. Non-notable (expect maybe to the driver). Crabapplecove 02:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Blair

Delete. Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 02:11, 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 and redirect WP:SNOW. Bill Drummond was a member of The KLF (who have a Featured Article) and he's a very notable figure in the British arts and music worlds. That said, this is just one of his many conceptual projects and doesn't merit a seperate article. No Music Day will be covered in his article once I or another editor get one of the famous "round tuits". kingboyk 11:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC) On second thoughts, there's no need to delete it. The text isn't harmful in any way. I shall speedy redirect. --kingboyk 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Music Day

Recently-created, not apparently notable, in any way I can find, "holiday". <200 yahoo hits, many duplicates. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:23, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

I change my nomination to reflect the recent rewrite of this article. I believe the article should no longer be considered for deletion. It should however be renamed/moved as to reflect the new contents of the article.--kralahome 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The AfD tag was placed on the talk page instead of on the article itself. I've moved it to the right place. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a wondeful compilation of little insignificant facts that all together embellish American history. Also it's an amazing source for trivia. If it does get deleted I already added it to the AntiWikipedia since the article does need to be saved from extinction.24.90.233.29 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see any good reason to delete this. Carfiend 03:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any good reason to keep this. None of it is properly sourced, and we could all sit around all day thinking up new connections between Lincoln and Kennedy, but so what? Without a direct source for each datum, it's completely original research. Crabapplecove 03:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Detailed, yes, but seems to fall under WP:NOT collection of info (#2 Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics). I'm sure there has been books, Reader's Digest articles and other items about this subject, but to nom's comment, let's not start a List of similarities between Foo and Bar — MrDolomite | Talk 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the massive revisions and improvements to the article, I have changed my vote concensus building notation. Good job to all who worked on it, much less listy, more articley. Let's hope this starts a trend, much rather have an "Articles for Improvement" turnaround out of AfDs. — MrDolomite | Talk 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random information - such pages could be made about any two people. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep after rewrite - this no longer feels like random info, but rather an article about a previously existing list - no longer OR. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Significant piece of American folklore. This list of similarities is older than the internet, and might even outlast Wikipedia. dryguy 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and WP:OR (unless someone comes up with more than just a single website citing some of the similarities mentioned in the article). -- Koffieyahoo 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Neutral after rewrite, but the list should be kept clean from any original research. -- Koffieyahoo 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Plus, this is a list of hand-picked similarities. Given enough time, you could make a similar list of similarities between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. -- Grev 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original list was, as Kralahome and others independently concluded, a demonstration of how easy it is to find coincidences between two events; the creator was skeptic Martin Gardner and the original publication was in Scientific American[1]. The list now circulates as an urban legend. That should be the topic of the article, not an ever-expanding WP:OR list of speculation. I'm not sure it warrants a full article, but it certainly warrants a discussion in the Gardner article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In Gardner's book, "The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix", p. 42, he mentions prior publication of the list in the Aug. 10 Newsweek and the Aug. 21 Time magazine in 1964, so I doubt he was the original author of the list. Like most urban folklore, the origin may never be established. The list, as reproduced in his book, contains only 16 items. The entire chapter 4 of the book is devoted to the subject. dryguy 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here's the archived Time article: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,876021,00.html. I didn't pay to read all of it, but it looks like the article was based on a previous article in the "G.O.P. Congressional Committee Newsletter." dryguy 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just a list of coincidences. In fact, some are not even conincidences, like "Both Corbett and Ruby were known as unstable men who were prone to violence." This would be expected in lone assassins (as opposed to a military operation or a revolutionary group) of political figures. Another thing that is not irregular enough to be a coincidence is "Both assassins knew of their victims' whereabouts by reading about it in newspapers." The media is by far the most likely source of information for the assassins, so there are two choices, newspapers and television news. Others are just silly, like "Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car; a Lincoln limousine." Still others are common to many if not most U.S. presidents, like military service and the studying of law. Few things that are listed are true coincidences and most of them are still not that unusual. However, coincidences happen all the time and there are so many things that are not coincidences that are not listed. For example, the presidents and assassins had different first and last names and they were not wearing identical clothing during the assassinations. Also, they were not shot on the same date. Finally, the presidents and assassins were different ages at the time of the assassinations (measured to the year). -- Kjkolb 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WPINAICOI. Medtopic 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Keep. I like that rewrite identifies it as a piece of folklore, which should serve as a barrier against the inclusion of random information. Medtopic 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete True, this has been around for a long time, but it's hardly encyclopaedic. If we had an article on Buddy Starcher's top forty hit "History Repeats Itself" from '66 where he just spouts off some of these, perhaps one or two examples could be included there, but on its own it's just an arbitrary collection of info that could be done for any two entities. GassyGuy 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The rewrite is better and the topic may squak by as far as encyclopaedic content. I'd prefer it be a section of something rather than an article unto itself, but as there's nowhere to merge it where it wouldn't just be clutter, this seems the best solution. GassyGuy 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Weak Keep as I think the new version may be notable but I'm open to persuasion. I'm not in favour of the bias towards pop/internet phenomonen on wikipedia but this may be one that has sufficient notability. Could be further refined but that's an editing issue rather than a deletion one. MLA 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of similarities between this and a deleted article: 1) all of them. - CheNuevara 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MLA. DarthVader 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a perennial hoax. I presume that Snopes has a page on it, but I doubt it has sources outside of the e-mail forwarding set. Ziggurat 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and keep Hey, a source outside Internetania! Keep it, but the name has to go as it's no longer an accurate description of the article (per Paul August) Ziggurat 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm -- GWO
  • Delete: First, it's not necessary to lodge it here, as everyone will get it by forwarded e-mail within the first day of having an address. Second, these are not similarities. They are coincidences. Additionally, there is an implicit argument by analogy. It's one step more refined than "Hitler had a moustache, and so does your father." Snopse does have a page on it. Geogre 11:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to be optimistic. I'm going to show more faith in the world than usual (hey, I'm on Wikipedia, so I've got to believe in people somewhat) and change my view to very hopeful keep. The current version is about the folklore. So long as the future doesn't overwrite the article as yet another "didja know" list, we're in good shape. Congratulations and thanks to those who put in the work. Geogre 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten for context per Dhartung. This list in particular has some recurrance over the past couple decades at least... every so often a newspaper reprints it in their oddball/misc./etc. section (usually to make the obvious point about the ease of finding similarities). The original source seems to be Gardner's 1967 column in the Scientific American (title only here, reprinted here). It's even spawning parody ("Kennedy slept in the Lincoln bedroom, and Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom") :-). Fireplace 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not have lists of similarities between foo and bar but this is a bit of folklore that has been around for 40 years. I seem to remember a verion in Time magazine - there must be sources! Dlyons493 Talk 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that there is a strange coincidence in the circumstances of Lincoln and Kennedy has long been a pop culture fixation. Specific content issues should be worked out in the article, not by deleting it. WilyD 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the list is just a random collection of facts (some possibly dubious). As Dhartung pointed out, the origins of this might be worth a mention in the Gardner article, but this list article itself is pointless. -- Whpq 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten per Dhartung. The article shouldn't add more similarities, but instead should describe the phenomena and the explanation of the supposed "coincidences." Dark Shikari 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Interesting trivia, but I hate to think what would happen if we had a slew of "List of similarities between X and Y". Also I'm not sure how much of this information can be readily verified. Can this be transwiki'd somewhere instead? — RJH (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not aware of another such list of similarities that has anywhere near the notability of this list, so we are not in danger of a flood of similar articles. This list has been circulating for 43 years. As mentioned by others, the article needs cleanup to clarify the status as urban legend, remove the less commonly noted similarities, and note the faults and inaccuracies of many of the items on the list. That doesn't change the status of this list as a notable piece of American folklore. dryguy 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dark Shikari and others. This could be an interesting article. Zagalejo 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per the folklore rationale as mentioned by others. Erechtheus 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other reasons given above. Picking up on what Dhartung and Kjkolb said, I suspect that some smart math person well versed in probability could probably point out the problems in making a big deal about these coincidences. I, however, barely remember how to add. Agent 86 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The coincidences themselves may not stand up under scrutiny, but that still hasn't stopped the list from circulating. It's a familiar and notable list, regardless of whether the items on it are valid. Zagalejo 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen this circulate many times, just rewrite per what everybody's saying. Cut down on the amount of items listed and explain the folklore surrounding it. Specifically, talk about the similarities between the assassinations, as that's rather unique to the two presidents. A lot of the other stuff is, as has been pointed out, pure chance, however the assassination similarities are rather striking. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim it down to only the most cited coincidences/similarities. This is a subject that has certainly been notable enough to be featured in TV documentaries and discussions of the assassinations. 23skidoo 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep per rewrite although it does need a rename. It's on Snopes and most of it is false anyway and it violates WP:NOT. Whispering 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and CheNuevara. ---Charles 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But clean up and include verifiable comparisons. These coincidences have long been the subject of speculation, and has enjoyed discussion accross many publications; including Ripley's Believe it or Not as well as many "non-fiction" books on the paranormal. --Merkurix 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dryguy and Zagalejo, who quite properly elucidate the distinctions betwixt that which is asserted as fact and that which is asserted as notable in view of its currency and betwixt that which is verifiable (here, the fact of the meme's existence) and that which is true. as cleaned up, and, per others, move (assuming arguendo that no signular name exists for the meme, it might be appropriate simply to retitle as Abraham Lincoln-John F. Kennedy similarities meme (Abraham Lincoln-John F. Kennedy similarities Internet meme is improperly precise, I think, inasmuch as print copies have long been prevalent)
  • Delete and rewrite as an article about the list. The list, itself, is potentially verifiable, but not notable, and WP:OR unless each entry has a secondary source. The fact of the list's existence is verifiable (although there are few teriary sources) and potentially notable. (I see one sentence that could be kept, and the opening paragraph could be edited to something usable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if it is kept, I'll be expecting on article on List of similarities between Peyna and God. Peyna 02:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to clean it up, but the biggest problem is the selection criteria. They all have been chosen to suggest a connection that doesn't exist. Should we also list all of their dissimilarities so as to not lead the reader down an inappropriate train of thought? This list is encouraging the reader to draw illogical conclusions based on the article. A disclaimer at the top would be pointless, because at that point we're admitting the unencyclopedicness of the article. Peyna 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that a mention of the list's status as sort of folklore would be more appropriate and clarify things for the reader. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have completely rewritten the article. I hope folks find this rewrite acceptable. If so, perhaps we can keep the article either at its current location, or at a new name such as Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences (urban legend). dryguy 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is the proper approach to take with this article (I was going to propose something similar, but then decided Syphonbyte pretty much covered it). The article should be about the phenomenon of drawing irrational conclusions based on selective comparisons of important individuals. What it be real great would be if we could find some primary sources to cite. With that, I've changed my vote to Keep on the basis of the rewrite, but would support a name change. Peyna 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...per original nom. rootology 06:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Bang* *Bang* I'm assaDeleting this article --Cloveious 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT, WP:OR.--Dakota 17:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it presents the list in a very POV light and immediately beginning by stating that it is debunked - how can an article on an english encyclopedia use the word debunk and still seem balanced? It is unfortunate though as this could be a good article - however not as a list as a history of the list with some examples and a discussion of the discrepancies. Just because the subject matter is a list doesn't mean this has to be --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not quite. It states that Martin Gardner debunked the list and cites the book where he debunked it. It does not say that Martin Gardner was correct. If it did so, that might be regarded as POV, but it doesn't. dryguy 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment hmm yeah but does he use the word debunk? If not then it is the article authors view not fact. Besides it gets used in a seperate context later on which indicates the debunking as fact not a given point of view - slight differenc I know but it niggles me. The sad thibng is this is a good and interesting subject matter - I woul like to see it rewritten as an article about the list not a descriptive list of the list. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename. The current content documents a notable part of American culture. Should be renamed to something like: Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences (urban legend}. Paul August ☎ 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coincidences" was the original title, but it was changed for the following reason: The New American Oxford Dictionary defines coincidence n. as "A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent casual connection." Most the information in this article would not qualify as "remarkable." (quoting User:LibraryLion). Peyna 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the rewrite. I still say delete. It's still not that important. - CheNuevara 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - after the rewrite it's much better but I remain a bit unconvinced it needs its own article. -- Whpq 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepFun to read in 64, fun now.Edison 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While an article about a specific published list may be fine, the article should not be a list itself, which falls into the original research realm. 172 | Talk 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment actually that is an important point, at the moment it isn't made clear (if at all) that the information is coming from the book - or any other source. You cannot say John Wilkes Booth was shot by a trooper during efforts to capture him - hardly an assasination without a reference even if it is true - because that is original research. Also that sentences could be counted as NPOV as well - hardly an assasination is the writers point of view. --Errant In fact I'm going to remove that bit --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:45, 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, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Guide to Bluehorses

This is a "guide" to The Bluehorses, a band that seems to me to be notable. But it doesn't really matter, this is all WP:OR and WP:POV and really WP:NOT the kind of thing Wikipedia is for. Contested prod. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 02:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Dalli

Anon tried to list this for afd, but ended up just linking to the previous discussion. I'm just cleaning up here and finishing the nom -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:31, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nice idea, but Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Perhaps a few pics can be merged into Fame (film), as that article is pretty empty at the moment. This could be a good opportunity to expand it. Fabricationary 02:36, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ross Murphy

Extremely non-notable artist, gets almost no Google hits Crabapplecove 02:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INIFINITT

Looks like marketing straight out of a marketing document Matgraham 03:01, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Auto Mart

Marginal notability, gets 4000 google hits --Interiot 03:12, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Houts

Absolutely non notable. The guy worked on some tv shows and croakes, so? Soundoflolllermania 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep he wrote for Rockos Modern Life! Carfiend 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-notable? He contributed to three major television cartoons. dryguy 03:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep IMDB profile shows a decent body of acting work, much of it as a voice actor. Also writing for Rocko. I'd say he's just over the notability bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, he's famous enough to be encyclopedic--Musaabdulrashid 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. The fact I may or may not like "Rocko" is not a factor for notability. Being "famous" might factor into notability, but objectively judging that is where I see the article failing WP:BIO for article coverage. he's listed in a lot of places, yes, but is anyone actually talking about him? I'm sorry he's dead, too, but this isn't a place for his obituary. Tychocat 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guy gets almost NO Google hits unless it's wikipedia or Imdb. Soundoflolllermania 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When he died in 1997, the web was still a novelty to quite a lot of people. What do you expect, dozens of fan sites? For an actor who's been dead for nearly a decade, I'm impressed that his Google presence is as large as it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Andrew Lenahan. As an aside, plenty of important things don't show up in Google, but one would expect, I suppose, a few more, given that he's contemporary. Jacqui★ 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Edit: additional comment: he played minor characters, but apparently many of them, and he might have gotten bigger if his life hadn't got cut short by leukemia. Though I'm sure someone would point out that "might have" or "would have" aren't as much a factor in this decision compared to what actually happened, and someone would be right.[reply]
  • Weak keep Pet the above and history. He's notable enough for a stub for anyone looking him up. rootology 06:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Domination

Nonsense entry Stev0 03:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racing with Jesus

non-notable sponsorship program. Sponsoring mostly obscure and lesser race car drivers doesn't create notability. Racingcruft, Jesuscruft. Crabapplecove 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and rewrite, the quality of the drivers is moot, the team (it's not really a sponsorship program) has competed in Nextel Cup, Busch, and Craftsman Truck Series events, and is verifiable by Google. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it sounds impressive, but it's really not that big a deal. Plenty of non-notable entities can and do connect themselves to drivers in the same way as this religious group, it's not just big-name corporations. Morgan Shepherd is the only famous driver they've managed to attach themselves to, and that's not saying much. Crabapplecove 04:04, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mitrione

It makes many specific claims and insuations about an historical figure without providing footnotes or source quotes. It is also poorly written, with the section Personal Life offering scant information about Mitrione's actual life. It violates NPOV in that the only associated information is in external links that are from ideological critics of U.S. government policies that Mitrione was allegedly implementing. Bias is shown by the inclusion of a See Also link to a "List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945," which has no information about Mitrione. I elaborated on this in the article Discussion. Nicmart 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - definitely needs more sourcing on some of these claims, and even then may not warrant a separate article to one on American operations during the Cold War (or something of that sort. BigHaz 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided definitely fails WP:NPOV, lead sentence "...alleged torture expert..." is uncited. Needs {{cleanup}}, {{ExpertVerify}}, {{Disputed}}, {{ActiveDiscuss}}, {{POV-check}}. As WP:n00b, unclear if the combination of the above qualifies for deletion as a kickoff for a fresh start. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After all, Dan Mitrione is well known [3], and is the "hero" of the Costa-Gavras film "State of Siege". I see this AfD as an attempt to rewrite/delete a piece of "dirty" US history.--Tilman 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I acctually do not beleive that this is POV, but this individual in the cold war context is not notable. He doesn't appear to have been extremelt high ranking and thousands of people serving the US government have tortured or assisted in torturing others. We cant have an article on all of them.--Musaabdulrashid 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Cleanup: There is enough evidence out there that a thoughtful and less motivated person could construct an article. POV is not a reason for deletion, by itself, although "inherently POV" is. The article needs TLC, but not deletion (and no one's trying to cover up America's dark history...that kind of claim is just plain silly). Geogre 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obscure but notable historical trivia that deserves retention. Keep. rootology 06:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rootology. -- DS1953 talk 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to see if Wikipedia had any credibility. No credible publication could possibly keep an article as laughably unsupported by evidence as this one. Wikipedia is as bad as its reputation, so if someone wants to remove the deletion notice, it is of no consequence to me. It was just an experiment. I can always refer people to the Mitrione article as evidence of the sham that Wikipedia is. Nicmart 03:01, 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duesenberg & Leik Motorsports

Sometimes it seems that race car drivers and organizations get their own article just for existing. These guys have done nothing notable yet, IMHO, and their few Google hits seem to reflect this. Crabapplecove 03:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Verma

Delete. Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 03:55, 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. Wickethewok 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in Michigan

This article contains only the opinions and thoughts of its author and does not include links to any sources Mertens21 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hell, strip away the origianl research, and it's still an article on a non-single and otherwise non-notable song. -- Kicking222 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Umm, so why is this song important? All I get is that, if we were at the Chile Poppers fansite, we might be intrigued. It's more nearly a forum post or blog entry than article, although it's a good forum post or blog entry. I don't want to insult the author, but the article doesn't give much justification for itself. Geogre 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -000
    • Comment - Could you give a reason why you think it should be kept? I mean just saying keep makes it look like either you were the author of the article or you want to keep it just because you like the song, which really isn't a good reason because I like the song, too, but the article has no sources and it looks like the information was just made up. So if you could give a reason why it should be kept that would be great. Thanks, Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMany people including myself would search the internet looking for articles and finally come to a stop at wikipedia, it always has the right results.. this is one of those times.. This song is a to-be released single so even if it's deleted it will be put back up in a matter of weeks... KEEP IT
    • Comment - Where did you get the information that this is a to-be released single because it doesn't say it on the wikipedia page and there's no link to somewhere that says it. If it is going to be a single than it should be kept, but the original research should still be deleted. If it's not going to be a single than there is no reason to keep it.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mallanox 19:25, 1 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Wolf

Barely notable, violates WP:VAIN. The only author, WolfB, appears to be writing about himself. rootology 04:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRE Loaded

Unnecessary article for a fork of the open source OsCommerce software being used to advertise commercial hosting/customisation services. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: CRE Loaded is not commercial, but FREE open source project with its rapid growing community. You can visit www.creloaded.com, forum.creloaded.com to make sure. If osCommerce and Zen cart articles are present in Wiki why CRE Loaded should not, as it is the similar projects. osCommerce, Zen Cart and CRE Loaded are the leading free PHP shopping carts in the Net. It is reasonable to cross reference them to make the full undrstanding of free shopping cart software market for Wiki reader. -- Osc4you 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not arguing against covering CRE Loaded on Wikipedia, I am questioning the need for a separate article which true purpose seems to be linking to osCommerce4you and Chain Reaction Web websites which (unlike the software itself) is commercial. The fact that your username is "Osc4you" implies that you are trying to use Wikipedia to advertise your services/products. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I have the advertising purpose, I'll take another nickname LOL. Chain Reaction Web and CRE Loaded project is not separated terms. CRE Loaded is Chain Reaction Edition of osCommerce (CRE = Chain Reaction Edition) Osc4you 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad for website. -Royalguard11Talk 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not free adspace and this is an advert. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins

This discussion has been blanked as a courtesy.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reposted material that was already deleted before. --Merovingian - Talk 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axe wound

previously deleted term for female genitalia presumed hoax Here.it.comes.again 04:13, 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, obviously. No reason to spent more time on this. Friday (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smeg Wars

Unfinished fan-made parody with no claim of notability. Proposed for deletion by User:Goldom, PROD tag removed by article author. --Stormie 04:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: In addition to Stormie's points, by the own admission of the article, only the intro of some of the movies even exist. On youtube, no less. Should we have pages for every youtube video, or worse, for everyone who plans to upload a video on youtube? -- Ritchy 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely non-notable fan film. With extreme prejudice for its use of the word "smeg" in a non-Red Dwarf context, too ;-) Seb Patrick 10:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any of these on IMDB, under my minimum standard for movies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Personally, I treat hoaxes like this as "simple vandalism" and do a speedy delete. After all, how can "vandalism" be a speedy delete category, unless it's talking about created articles? Anyway, this one is obvious. Geogre 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. And, why has the article's creator not received warnings on his talk page for removal of the prod and AfD tags? ---Charles 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has regarding speedy tags, now. Delete, by the way, per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:39, 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 keep and rename. Wickethewok 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super DJ Clark Kent

Fails: WP:MUSIC notability test. Google hits for ("Super DJ Clark Kent" -wikipedia) = 38. ("Rodolfo Franklin" -wikipedia) = 115. No listing on Allmusic. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the page certainly shouldn't be kept under the current name, so you've undermined your own argument! If notability is established, I'd say move to Clark Kent (DJ) or Clark Kent (producer). Seb Patrick 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've undermined my argument, a move is technically a keep. hateless 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. If he's such a playa, people ought to be talking about him, and the lack of articles raises the question of notability, not whether he sucks. Yes, he gets a lot of Ghits, but most of those are catalog listings. Tychocat 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You speak as if the criteria list on WP:BIO has one item or that WP:BIO is the only place notability criteria is located. First, Google is not going to be as a reliable test for CK because his heyday, 1989-1994, was before the web boom; see Wikipedia:Notability#Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests. Still, I could find some stuff. Here are articles specifically on Clark Kent: [4] [5] [6]. Here's an unverifiable claim to him being the best DJ of all time: [7] Here is where Clark Kent is mentioned as an influence upon other notable DJs: Cipha Sounds (Cipha Sounds is a radio personality/DJ in NYC, and responsible for Soundbombing 3), DJ Scratch (Jay-Z's DJ, and more), DJ Enuff (another NYC radio personality). The previously noted (and dismissed) discography meets "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies (as notable)" in WP:MUSIC. All of which would meet at least two criteria within WP:MUSIC. hateless 18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - The missing part of your WP:MUSIC quote is "...that qualifies above", and there's been no charted hits among his discography. In looking over the material proffered, I note two uncredited biographies, and the first one mentions Kent as a shout-out. If you're saying he's a former DJ, that would also explain the lack of articles, in that he's apparently failed the suggested "100-year test" for WP:BIO after only 12 years. Tychocat 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first claim is false. Loverboy (Mariah Carey song) is a Clark Kent production, it reached #2 in the US. You are also misinterpreting WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. First off, on WP:BIO, the suggested "100-year test" is an alternate test without being a consensus-backed guideline. It's in there as an afterthought for a reason, and using it to prove non-notability is not established practice here and highly disputable, because it is extremely subjective--you need some expert opinion to make any valid claims because divination has no place on WP. And no, Google will not turn you into an instant expert on everything. Secondly, notability criteria on WP in general, and explicitly in WP:MUSIC is a one and done deal: you hit any one criteria and the subject is notable. The easiest criteria to prove right now is "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." If you will, please entertain this proof:
      1.) by "a musician or ensemble that qualifies above", the criteria means a musician/performer who meets any one of the criteria listed in the section above it. It does not, as you claim, mean the performer charted a hit, there are several other criteria it could meet to be notable.
      2.) Jay-Z, Notorious BIG, Rakim, Slick Rick, Queen Latifah, and Junior MAFIA are all hip-hop acts that qualify as notable performers in WP:MUSIC
      3.) Producers in hip-hop are always the beatmaker, or composer for the song. They have songwriting credit and get royalties from BMI and ASCAP per their status.
      4.) Clark Kent has produced for all of them., QED.
      And as my final words on this matter, WP:OSTRICH. hateless 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that. Despite the apparent new-found notability, I note the article is, at the moment, the same one I nominated for a delete. I cannot assume you would rather win, than be right? Tychocat 11:06, 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.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Goat

A recurring skit on an Australian radio station's morning show. Non-notable. Crabapplecove 04:24, 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 - one of the keeps is dubious, as noted below. Kappa is a well-known extreme inclusionists and had not in my opinion provided a compelling reason to keep in lieu of consensus.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish billiards players

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this solitary, country-specific list of individuals which might or might not be notable serves no purpose that could not be addressed better by a category. Deprodded by Kappa. Sandstein 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user account of Orangehead was created yesterday, and its contributions consist almost entirely of "keep" votes on AfD. Sandstein 19:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bok, gargoyle

semi-incoherent article about an obscure and non-notable Doctor Who character (whose name apparently may not even be Bok.) Crabapplecove 04:40, 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. - brenneman {L} 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missional

Promotional essays on the Christian Missionary movement. Fails: Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and WP:NOT#Original Thought. Most sections are written in a first-person manner and ask rhetorical questions and the accompanied author attributions for four sections make them highly likely copy-and-pasted essays (i.e copyright violations). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or speedy, if there is no quick refutation: The article is signed and attributed, which makes it almost a certain copyvio (depending upon which church it came from and what they did with their licensing), and it is a direct attempt to communicate to the reader, and it is a copy and paste from a pastoral letter. Since it's not a papal or royal pastoral letter, it's not appropriate for WikiSource. Geogre 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been a joint effort of 7 people to establish some foundational content on wikipedia about the term "missional"...it has been noted that we should go back through and look more closely to the "point of view" of the articles but it has been the intent to be as fair and broad as possible without deluting the term missional. As far as the authors attributions, it is will full consent from the authors that their material is on the page. It was written for wikipedia. I was designated as the original "poster" of everyone's input, then each person would come in and edit and bring a more full balance to the content. Each person has been told to attribute and use footnotes when citing sources. If anyone sees content that does not seem to meet this criteria, please point it out and we will either fix it or remove that citation. All other feedback is appreciated so that we can fully comply with the guidelines of wikipedia. Thank you. --Missions fan 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: A major problem with what you've said so far is that you are implying those who have contributed to the article so far "own" it. Wikipedia, being a collaborative project doesn't work like that. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a host for personal essays. By attributing each section, it's implying that no one else but the original author(s) can modify the article and also implies that the specific section is that author's "original thought", which poses not only copyright problems, but also neutral point of view issues as well. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Collaborative efforts are encouraged on Wikipedia. So the fact that we are working together to begin the article does not imply that we think we own it. See the Wikipedia Collaborations section [8] where it says that "In order to improve the quality of articles which are short or lacking in detail, Wikipedia's community take part in collaborations to expand articles. On each collaboration, an article is chosen by people interested in the topic, and for a period of time (a week, fortnight, or month) the chosen article is worked on, under Wikipedia's principle of collaborative editing." --Missions fan 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Criticism taken and understood. Our weaknesses in the articles have more to do with each of us learning about posting to Wikipedia. The origianal goal was to have one person post for everyone at first so that we could coordinate a strong start to the page. Per yours and others suggestions, the remainder of our group will post their own material. We will also be editing and critiquing one another, and we are WIDE OPEN for others to post/reply etc. (We understand THAT IS WIKIPEDIA) A topic that is so hotly discussed right now needs this space and an open forum. Many people have no idea where to begin to understand this and study it for themselves. We wanted to provide an outline, resource list, and links to begin. And start the flow of input. We have simply been surprised there was not a wikipedia page yet, so we wanted to start it--not own it. Everyone has been contacted to make necessary changes, add needed references, and work on the "point of view." Thank you for your feedback. Until the others have posted, I hope this answers your original concerns. All criticism, edits, and comments are welcome. --Missions fan 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll also need to address the biggest problem of this article -- that it's putting forward the viewpoint of your church's members. i.e. soapboxing and a lot of other editors will vote for deletion on those grounds. Encyclopedia articles have to be written from a third person AND neutral point of view. What exactly is this article trying to do that Missionary isn't? Remeber, this page needs to resemble an encyclopedia article, not a discussion phamplet. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As I have stated, all criticisms have been sent out and will be worked on. The basic difference between missionary and missional is Missionary is a noun, Missional is an adjective. As I have been studying the basic submission guidelines and processes for improvement, I saw that before an article is to be suggested for deletion that the two parties in disagreement should discuss it first. Why did you suggest this for deletion before making a comment on the page (talk or discussion section)? Since you are proponent of the "guidelines of wikipedia" it seems that you would want to follow all rules of protocol?
  • Comment: Missions Fan, will the others be adding content or editing? That is your best bet for keeping it. The point of view is your biggest problem. If it is a group, then stay true to wiki and have everyone post-otherwise, it doesn't follow the wikipedia guidelines. make sure you read those--Cocodysri 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply: Yes, our goal is to edit the contributions of each of the other people in the group so that it is as solid of a beginning as possible. As far as people outside of the ones we know, we hope so. I am certain that more editing will come. The term is gaining broad use with varying "definitions" or "understanding." We are hoping there will be a LOT of contributions, discussion, editing, etc.
  • Comment: This topic is being talked about a lot in evangelical circles. Can you add more references/broader pictures of how others are defining it or not defining it? I think this would be a better submission if more of your "team" were actually adding the content and you had a broader range of references. It reads a little like the "Ed Stetzer and David Putman show"--excellent resources, I know of Dr. Stetzer and his work with North American Missions and church planting. It is understandable if you are all most familiar with their work. But for the integrity of a wikipedia page, you need to look at the broad picture of what is taught and written. You should also include material from www.missionalchurch.org, www.gracepeace.com, Tim Keller, Gruder's The Missional Church, www.sentchurch.com, the Gospel and Our Culture Network: Empirical Indicators of a 'Missional Church' A Working Document of the "Developing Congregational Models" Team The Transforming Congregations Toward Mission Project (http://www.gocn.org/indicators.htm). And I would suggest clearer contrast and comparison with the emerging church movement. You have some mention, it is sophomorish at best. You are on the right track, just fix these things and you should be fine. Make a note on this page if you would like help. --Goandtellallyoucan 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have sent everyone a link to this discussion, so I am sure that your sources will be a big help to those who need to adapt their content. And of course, you are free to add / edit content and these links yourself. What I said to Netsnipe above bears repeating, not a person among us thinks of ourself as an owner of this page. We simply wanted to get the content up there and the submissions and input started. --Missions fan 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Missions Fan, your co-writers are recreating the wheel on a few topics. You have a whole section that ties in with the history of christian missions which is already a part of wikipedia. this will be a better article if you simply link to those pages as a reference rather than rewrite everything. If there is content on those pages that is insufficient, then edit those pages with updated, accurate nonbiased information and improve the whole community. You all seem smart but you seem to be doing a lot of extra work. Before anyone started writing they should have become more familiar with wikipedia - it would have saved everyone some time. --Goandtellallyoucan 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As one who just recently attempted to add to the entry under discussion, I can honestly say that, at least on my part (and I believe, for my collegues as well), any failures in regard to Wikipedia standards as the innocent result of our bubmbling efforts to create an article. I, for one, am admittedly a complete novice to the Wikipedia reality. With all that said, I believe that Wikipedia may be enhanced by the inclusion of an article on the subject that we selected. Reverendal 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reverendal[reply]
  • Comment: This page seems to be very helpful and useful to many of us who are new in this subject. The discussion shows that the problems seem have to do with the guidelines and technical issues. May be a little bit of patience and tolerance can help them to get it up. Since it is in a public community environment, many of us will be benefited in long run. Just reading many of your insightful feedbacks, I have already learned few things in this subject. It is worth a try.--Clui 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Clui (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Reply: This user above, Clui, is the cited author of one of the articles included. I have emailed him and asked him to make edits on Point of View issues in his piece. Will it help if he can email from an authentic .edu email address with his full name to authenticate the uniqueness (non-sock puppet) nature of his account.--Missions fan 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Clui for being a bit hasty with that SPA tag, but we AFD reviewers can get overly paranoid about users with no edits to their names. Sockpuppetry can get very rampant around here. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyway, to be honest I do feel that the article is somewhat hopeless because like Goandtellallyoucan has pointed out, it seems to be reinventing the wheel in that the Mission (Christian) article already covers the topic well in an impartial manner that is to be expected in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, this article appears to be preaching on how best to be a missionary -- not exactly a topic that can be written about objectively since it all depends on how each writer individually interprets the Bible. I simply can't see anyway how any of your writers can convey the information you wish to add to this encyclopedia while maintaining a neutral point of view. Anyway, due to the lack of opinions submitted by other reviewers, I would think there will be at least week before a consensus is reached by the Articles for Deletion team. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much like other articles and I am concerned that with the POV elements removed it would be exactly like other articles. Mallanox 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay, WP:OR, so many things wrong about this being here. Doesn't belong here. -Royalguard11Talk 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:'Why should we be so hasty to delete the things on this page. It is obvious that there is a desire for this to be defined and those who have contributed really were unschooled in the ways of the Wikipedia... It seems to me that we should keep working on what we have in order to improve it rather than just throwing the whole thing out. I have just posted an addition to the article that I hope will be helpful. I am also new to this so please feel free to point out anything that I may need to improve. --Jamieryck 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I feel that there is vaulable content contained in the contributions. I agree that the contributors may need to edit their input to ensure that Wikipedia standards are met, but the material is worth keeping.--Rcinguyton 23:31, 2 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 merge into Christian Naturism, which was already done by User:Elton Robb (a bit hastily but no harm done in the end). - Bobet 08:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Naturism

This article is 100% unverifiable. Also, has some problems shared by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Hetar 05:23, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo II on Battle.net

Page is pretty much original research sociology about players, elements of a game guide, and info about cheaters. Only one citation at all I saw on the whole page, and has been tagged for cleanup for four months. I read it all the way through, and really don't see much encyclopedic content that couldn't be (or isn't already) better placed at either Diablo II or Battle.net, but most of it really doesn't fit here at all, mostly due to NOR. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:41, 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. JIP | Talk 09:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datamonitor

non-notable corporation, does not meet WP:CORP Brian 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball The editor (Jenny) that created the Datamonitor article is in marketing for Datamonitor and has stated that she "wanted to use your service to provide people with information about our company". I have searched extensively on Google and followed the links provided by User:Datamonitor and have found only one article that might meet the first criterion of WP:CORP --- which calls for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I find nothing that supports either of the other two criteria of wp:corp nor has Jenny responded with any material supporting the wp:corp criteria. Based on my research and the extensive dialog with User:Datamonitor (Jenny) I am convinced this is simply advertising and should be deleted. I did first try the PROD approach, but User:Datamonitor deleted the PROD.[reply]

  • Delete My nomination (am I supposed to do this in addition to creating the entry? If not, my apologies - I am still somewhat of a newbie here)
    • There is no need to do so and some editors find it irritating, especially since AfD is not supposed to be a vote. If you bring an article to AfD, it is assumed that you want the article deleted. If you are just finishing an incomplete nomination or are in favor of redirecting, or something besides deleting, just say so in the nomination. However, some editors do give their recommendation below their nomination. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VAIN. Datamonitor are a well known/notable UK company, but its not their own job to write this article. -- GWO
  • Delete per well-researched and reasoned nom. P.S. I was told to make my own recommendation on an afd I submitted, so go figure. Tychocat 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Gareth Owen suggested above, Datamonitor is a notable UK company, so Wikipedia should have an article about them. The worst of the vanity/advertising material has been removed again, leaving the bare facts. This can now be used as a basis for neutral editors to expand the article into something worthwhile. Gwernol 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also added external links to the article that show Datamonitor's analyst reports are widely used by reputable press outlets. This article now, I believe, meets WP:CORP. By the way I have no connection to the company - I'd not heard of them before about a week ago. Gwernol 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (changing my opinion based on the recent changes and removal of the blatant advertising. The verifiability is still a bit weak, but that can be improved. I no longer think this article needs to be deleted. We can work with what's there and improve it. Brian 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Comment - None of the external links are about Datamonitor, they all mention the firm in connection with a press announcement about someone else's earnings, e.g., the company still fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about itself. Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. The question of verifiability does however lend itself to the question of original research, which the article largely still consists of. Tychocat 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to me whether these meet the WP:CORP criteria #1 or not. The footnote to the criteria states "The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service". The product of Datamonitor is its reports, and these are articles by independent sources writing about the company's products. There is ambiguity here, but at the least its reasonable to argue that these sources count, which is why I added them. This would be a good example to discuss on the WP:CORP talk page as I think a clarification of the policy is needed. Given that there is general agreement about the notability of Datamonitor if not about the article as it stands, I believe its right to keep the article for now. Gwernol 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well there's the Superbrands article and site that was on a previous version of the article - it should probably go back. I found two other articles, Hoover's and CBRonline, but they are both paid services so I can't link them here. I find myself in the odd position of having been the one to AfD it in the first place (the first time I searched I only found articles by Datamonitor, not independent sources) but now believe that it's notable enough. I'll keep looking for sources that we can actually cite in the article to support notability, for the moment I'm ok with the article staying in its current form (excised of the previous advertising) - but that's just one editor's opinion. I'll be doing a bit of travelling for the next four days, so it will be a while before I get back to this. Personally, I'm ok with either delete or keep at this point. It's a pretty weak article and started out its life as a blatant advert. Datamonitor probably is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but more work is needed to demonstrate the "multiple non-trivial independent articles" about it... Brian 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - Datamonitor might be of some note, but that is not at issue. I looked into the article as it is now. It is bad. Datamonitor is only needed because we are going to quote them. Or they are going to be quoted. In essence, they are a footnote. Status is as such; they provide footnote material. Any relevant information they provide will be sold to high bidders as reports. Their public information is similar to Dow-Jones or other business listing agencies. In addition, they provide no historical information. I say delete. meatclerk 02:01, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Innaloo

Per precedents, malls are not inherently notable. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werribee_Plaza and countless others. Pascal.Tesson 06:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

although once again the question is expand how?. Nothing seems to indicate that this mall has any sort of particular notability. Is there really any chance that an article about that topic can reach any sort of encyclopedic value? And are you not at least a bit intrigued by the fact that precedents establish that malls which are not otherwise notable should not have their own article? Pascal.Tesson 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The features and development of Westfield innaloo has been expended a bit. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:22, 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas We Pass

This is nothing but immature spam, grow up. Newspaper98 06:04, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knicks4life

Vanity article for a non-notable web forum. Google hits (Knicks4life):748. Alexa traffic rank: 4,564,884 --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hello, I am a staff member of this website and it is the second largest New York Knicks website on the internet. It has gotten many responses in the newspapers and radio stations. I believes it should be kept on because it is a legitimate website with much more traffic than just "Google hits" and has a lot of dedicated and loyal fans. Wikipedia readers should have the right to know about a great website like this. Thank you, Knea2006 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knea2006 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Let the site have it's own Wikipedia. The site supports stuff like the origins of O RLY?! and IBTL, which are both rarely used on online message boards. But a site as big as Knicks4Life can't get recognition? I fail to see it.Knea2006 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - From the two posts Knea2006 has left on this deletion discussion I think it's pretty clear that this Wikipedia entry is just a promotion for a non-notable site. Also, in response to Knea2006's first post, maybe if your site were the largest and not the second largest New York Knicks website on the internet it would be notbale enough for an article, but it's not so it doesn't deserve an article.--Mertens21 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knea2006 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)What you people still fail to see is that you make absolutely no sense at all. I just mentioned that you have other much more less notable things on here and you an't even put up a faily-big website. Standards? It's one of the biggest Knick FAN sites on the internet. That's a big enough standard for me.Knea2006 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first person who's made that argument -- it doesn't work. The AFD review team is really busy and we nominate/review articles as we see them. Feel free to nominate yourself at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Anyway, O RLY passes the Wikipedia:Notability (web) test. i.e. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." So if your site has been mentioned elsewhere in print, then by all means post the link and we'll consider it. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will search for a link or mention or whatever need be. Thank you.Knea2006 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright nerds, listen up: I cannot find the NY Post article in which we are mentioned because it was a very long time ago but we have interviewed writers of the NY Times and NY Post before as a website and even interviewed people from ESPN 1050, a sports radio station here in New York. We've also gotten a few mentions on that radio station as well. A link? http://www.knicks4life.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10575 That's the best I can give you. People who love their website. Too bad you people are too stuck up to care. Thank you for your time, goodbye.Knea2006 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Wikipedia is for people all over the world so just because your site was mentioned in a few New York newspapers, although they are well known newspapers in the United States, not even everyone in the U.S. reads them so their not country-wide much less world-wide. Therefore your site being mentioned once in two popular U.S. newspapers doesn't make it notable to all the other English-speaking countries who use the english version of Wikipedia. Also, there's no reason to call people nerds just because they're intellectually superior to you and you aren't even intelligent enough to come up with a good reason to keep your article posted.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Intellectually superior? What makes you think that? Because you sit behind a computer all day decidng the fate of Wikipedia? If someone wants to search for Knicks sites on Wiki he'll find this on there. It's one of the best sites on the internet. What harm will it cause for it to remain up there? I don't see any insults or pornographic images. I just see a successful website wanting to expand it's image. Let up a little bit, would you?Knea2006 03:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Once again your intelligence is just astonishing. First of all “You sit behind your computer all day” is not a very accurate statement seeing as any intelligent person (which explains why you wouldn't notice) can see by the timestamp that I'm on around the same time every day and not “all day.” Also, you have no room to say anything about people being on the computer all day. I went to your forum site that you posted here and it's pretty much just 50 posts from you talking about this article and crying about how it's going to get deleted. And one more thing, considering you just said I sit at the computer all day and post on Wikipedia you sure replied fast to my last post. It's almost as if you sit at home all day watching this just to see who else has come here to let you know that your web site is completely unimportant to anyone.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More To Add To My Previous Comment - I just thought I'd add that your web site is most definitely not “one of the best sites on the internet.” It is in fact, quite possibly, one of the worst sites on the internet, which is one more reason it doesn't deserve an article. Also, I'd appreciate if you didn't come here and babble incoherently about “insults and pornographic images.” I don't know what that has to do with anything so if you could just keep your porn addiction to yourself that would be great. Thanks, Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Who do you think you are, tool? You think you are someone special because you can decide the fate of Wiki articles? Who gives a rats ass what you can do? Listen up buddy, you don't intimidate me and your attempt to "own" me failed. Also showing your ignorance was the fact that you insulted a website that has done nothing to you. Calling it one of the "worst sites on the internet" is not what you should be doing. Nowhere did I say it was the best on the 'net. I said it was the best KNICKS sites on the web. Now, aside from reading Harry Potter books and pleasuring yourself to Star Trek episodes, do you have any idea who or what the Knicks are? Because from what I can see, you have none. So please, spare me the preaching and the attempt to act like a smart aleck. I've been there and done that and dealt with people like you, who think you are someone special because you work on wikipedia. Whoopdeedamndoo brother, what in the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm supposed to respect you? I don't even know you! So get whatever is out of your ass and act like a human being, rather than a robotic mouthpiece for wikipedia.Knea2006 04:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - And yet again you're intelligence astonishes me. However if you could stop with the childish insults for a second and learn how to read you would see that you did in fact say that it was the best site on the internet so just in case you do learn how to read I will quote you from your earlier post and highlight the incredibly unintelligent statement contained within it.
      • Quote: “Haha. Intellectually superior? What makes you think that? Because you sit behind a computer all day decidng the fate of Wikipedia? If someone wants to search for Knicks sites on Wiki he'll find this on there. ‘It's one of the best sites on the internet.’ What harm will it cause for it to remain up there? I don't see any insults or pornographic images. I just see a successful website wanting to expand it's image. Let up a little bit, would you?Knea2006 03:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)”[reply]
    • Now that you've been embarrassed repeatedly and tried to redeem yourself repeatedly with foolish and childish insults, which, as stated in a previous post, make absolutely no sense, I would suggest that you just give up trying to sound intelligent, get off your computer, leave your mom's basement, and go out and get a job so perhaps someday you can pay for an education. Thank you for your time, I've enjoyed making you look like an incompetent ass, although you didn't need my help, have a nice day. Also, I realize your going to respond with yet another childish insult and call me a “doo doo head” or whatever, but I'm not going to continue trying to convince you that your web site is not one of the best on the internet and not even one of the best Knicks sites on the internet because you are obviously to incompetent to realize that. Once again thank you for using Wikipedia, try putting your article on one of the many gay porn sites you visit.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, what a classless tool. So, I made a mistake. The point was it is one of the best KNICK sites on the internet. Why don't you get your head out of your sarcastic, stuck up ass and realize you are a nobody? Mother's basement? You wish buddy. The only ass you've seen is yours in the mirror of your bathroom. You have your opinion about the site, I have mine, but to fall to the levels of calling the sites "one of the worst sites on the internet" is a disgrace for a wikipedia "employee." How did you get your position anyway? Seems like you have no sense of humor though, especially not with that lame gay porn joke. Get a life dude. No, seriously. Get one. Knea2006 05:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind both of you the following two rules here:

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, but ofcourse. Now the arrogant Mertens21 acts like the holier-than-thou person that he's supposed to be.Knea2006 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add, it is not MY site as Meretens keeps repeating. I am just a writer for the website and the fact is, the article would've been deleted either way because of the fact it doesn't meet the "criteria" to be listed on Wikipedia.Knea2006 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this AFD doesn't put you off from contributing to Wikipedia forever especially on NBA-related articles. An AFD nomination on your very first article can be a very demoralising experience I know and some people do take it personally, but these rules exist to stop people promoting themselves, bands, companies, websites etc, because if we let everyone do it, then Wikipedia will start to lose its reputation for being an independent source of information. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not promoting. It's a legit website that should be on Wikipedia in my respectful opinion.Knea2006 23:55, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr sketchy's anti-art school

Vanity or advertisement for non-notable burlesque club. Medtopic 06:18, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Knight

Unreferenced, unverifiable claims. Medtopic 07:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Miriam

Somehow, this managed to survive an afd in May (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Miriam). It's a summer camp. The main reasons it survived last time seem to be that (a) it was Jewish (presumably if it had been a non-Jewish summer camp, deletion would have been fine... an argument I cannot quite fathom); (b) it is in Canada, not the US (somehow, Canadian summer camps are notable but US ones aren't... an argument I cannot quite fathom); and (c) the nomination was "sloppy" as it said the camp was in the US (how this relartes the the encyclopedic worth of the article I cannot quite fathom). I see no reason why this article should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia has quite a few articles on non-Jewish US-based summer camps, see: [9]. Why is a Jewish/Canadian summer camp any less worthy of inclusion? Drett 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its obvious that Grutness meant that a Jewish/Canadian summer camp should not be any MORE worthy of inclusion. Please dont twist words around.--Musaabdulrashid 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't twisted anything. I interpreted Grutness' comments as meaning he was unaware that there were numerous articles on summer camps of all denominations and from various countries. This seems as worthy of inclusion as any of the others. Drett 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate the others for deletion. --Daduzi talk 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop twisting my words Drett. Your interpretation takes quite a bit of skill to work out from what I wrote. The article is about a summer camp and - irrespective of location or denomination - virtually no summer camps deserve separate articles on Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, there are over 100 separate articles on summer camps on Wikipedia, which suggests that other people disagree with you regarding the worthiness of their inclusion. You said you could not fathom the argument that Canadian/Jewish summer camps would not be deleted while presumably other summer camps would. As other summer camp articles have not been deleted, I could only assume that you did not know there were myriad other articles on similar institutions that you were not aware of - that was how I interpreted your nomination, but if I have misrepresented you, I apologise. Drett 14:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly the Beagle

An article about the original editor's pet dog. Prod removed, so here we are at AfD. Fails policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Creating articles about your pets is so foolish that it is in Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create. Mr Stephen 08:07, 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 both. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable_development_organization_inpakistan

If this org is real, it does not appear to be notable. A google for the name of the founder brings up a couple of hits for someone currently imprisoned in Guantamano Drett 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Sustainable_Development_Organization_in_Pakistan for the same reason. Drett 08:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside VW

non-notable webgroup/club Travelbird 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the term "non-notable". Eastside VW is a recognised club by major UK insurance companies, being a member entitles those taking out a car insurance policy to a discount. Eastside VW also has displays at major UK events and shows and has been featured in national UK magazines. In the highly popular UK VW scene, Eastside VW is widely known and respected.

  • Delete - fails WP:WEB, and provides no sources, -- Whpq 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Local club, regional website, fails WP:WEB and is not striking out sufficiently to require explanation to the world. As for making the world aware of its existence -- that's not what we do. Geogre 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I get 64 distinct Google hits, mostly club directories. There are no multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to shore up notability. While I have long stated that Google should not be the final arbiter of notability, at this level it's symptomatic. Our anonymous contributor may want to study WP guidelines before trying another article. Tychocat 08:37, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Blooker Prize

Non-notable, made-up "literary award" for non-notable blogs. Vanity, blatant self-promotion and pagerank-inflating linkspam. "Notability" "enstablished" only by two rather ironic and probably paid-for online articles and the fact that it is name is "a pun on the long-established Man Boner Prize". Absoluteny no content besides advertising. Please Delete. Femmina 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil. Yomangani 10:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tamika

Prod tag removed by possible sockpuppet: Jes Liloleme (talk • contribs). Article on an "adult" actress. Playboy Coed of the Week is not considered notable under Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guidelines. Google hits for ("Natasha Tamika" -Wikipedia) = 369. No listing on Internet Adult Film Database. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:55, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of Rockford Pipe Band

Not notible, Vanity. The author admitted on talk page that he is closely related to this 25 member organization. This pipe band is by far the least notible of any American bands to currently have an article in this encyclopedia. I am in favor of userfying or deleting Musaabdulrashid 09:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I have noticed that articles like this are a once in a lifetime phenomenon and that it is extremely unlikely that any other articles about grade 4 bands would be this good. Deleting it would not work to set any type of presecent for similar pipe band articles, because there probably won't ever be any similar pipe band articles.--Musaabdulrashid 06:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User pages aren't supposed to be free home pages, and thus I don't think this would be appropriate material for a user page. I don't really see a problem with vanity here, despite the author's admitted relationship with a band member, as long as the material is objective and verifiable. Having said that, I think the notability of even a strong Grade 4 band is in doubt. so my vote is Weak delete. Changing vote to Weak keep based on some competition success and some evidence of notability within their local community. Dsreyn 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Userfy or Weak Delete, (nominator, my real vote). This material isn't really a home page, and as said before it could very easily be on wikipedia if it was more notable. An article like this does not seem to violate Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and it is not any more a home page than most other userpages. Vanity, I beleive, is a key issue here though as more 2/3rds and possible 3/4 of the author's edits have been to this page and immediately related articles. This is generally bad for wikipedia and harms the encyclopedic nature of pipe band articles.--Musaabdulrashid 23:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I would like to state I have no problem with the discussion in regard to the issue that the City of Rockford Pipe Band article may or may not meet the "notability" standard. I, however, am beginning to take umbrage over its deletion based on "vanity." While I made a great number of edits in the article my intent was to provide proper structure and objective content. If the sole critera for "vanity" in any new article is the percentage of edits made by one individual then we may have a problem with some, if not most, of the pipe band articles - all of which are relatively new. Example: Midlothian Scottish Pipe Band (no allusions to "relationship" intended). Further, I believe time would be better spent in defining or at least developing a consensus as to the "notabilty" standard for pipe band inclusion and carry on from there.--Srebob 11:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)srebob[reply]
I really hope this doesn't offend you in any way, but I meant that over 2/3rds of your total contributions were to this article, and that you've contributed to little else (there's nothing wrong with that in general). This definetely doesn't alone qualify the article as vanity, but considering the subject's non notable nature, it isn't good. If a user were to only contribute to one article, it should be to somthing more notable and a subject which that user is not directly connected to.--Musaabdulrashid 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. An article like this is a little difficult to characterize, but with a state and regional championship in its class, the pipe band seems to have at least some minimal notability. I would give the article time to grow. -- DS1953 talk 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that as of now the encyclopedia has 3 articles about grade 1 pipe bands in the US, 3 articles about grade 2 pipe bands in the US, and just this one article about a Grade 4 band. To be fair, we would need to write articles about the rest of the grade 2 bands and the best grade 3 bands before we would include this one. Honestly, I don't think anyone would want to write articles about grade 3 or grade 4 pipe bands unless they play in them themselves, or are very close to someone who plays in one. There simply is no way that a Grade 4 band is notable.--Musaabdulrashid 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The premise that the grade 2 and grade 3 articles need to be written first is faulty. Wikipedia articles generally don't get written "in order" - they are written whenever someone has the time, interest and knowledge. I think the issue is simply the notability of a grade 4 band. Dsreyn 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was only demonstrating that there is practically no interest in G4 pipe bands. There is enough time and knowledge here to write an article on almost any pipe band.--Musaabdulrashid 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2. I agree, somewhat, with Dsreyn. As a continuing aside: just what the heck (change "heck" as it suits you) is "notable (I know I'm being redundant)." In the midwest the City of Rockford Pipe Band is a minor phenomena, in the world it's a "piss-ant" pipe band. Do we disallow the over all effort to write Pipe Band articles based on some yet limited definition of "worthiness" or do we simply delete them from the "Notable Pipe Band List" (my vote) and let well written and object articles stand on their own merit? Beats me...--Srebob 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)srebob[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Wrestling Domain

non-notable. Seems to only be a collection of various wrestling title histories TruthCrusader 09:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) It is a collection of title histories, pay per view histories and biographies, providing a vast amount of wrestling's past.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foxyards

Non-notable. A housing estate in the West Midlands.....? (Pally01 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I get eight distinct Google hits, mostly incidental references to location. There are no multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to shore up notability. Article doesn't even try to be encyclopedic or to establish notability. Tychocat 08:51, 28 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 16:32, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist New Jersey

No google hits apart from this Wikipedia article. Probable hoax or not notable. DarthVader 09:48, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Severe Weather Page

This isn't notable at all - it's just a website with weather info updated occasionally. The article itself seems rather like spam, and it was written by the webmaster of the site (who incidentally created pages about himself and his dog which were speedied yesterday). Ruaraidh-dobson 09:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted as pages with an open AfD shouldn't be blanked. --Craig Stuntz 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am the creater of Ohio Severe Weather Page. I agree it should be deleted. I am sorry for the non-notable website. I am still learning about weather and have not totally developed the skill, but in the near future I hope to create a more advance website. I monitor the website on my own because its free web hosting, so it is pretty hard to keep up with everything and keep up to date everything. I really enjoy weather, but I understand it should not be posted in Wikipedia because it is created by free web hosting. I appologize. If anyone understands where I come from, please keep posting because I agree it should be deleted. I didn't know that you were not alowd to delete your own article you created yourself. I rather not have my IP signed on this page if you don't mind. User:Jordanrschroeder - 28 July 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGNPH

AGNPH stands for Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai. Vanity article for a definitely non-notable newsgroup if I've ever heard of one. Google hits for "Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai" = 349. Fails: WP:WEB. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daireem - The Universe

Not notable. Less than 100 google hits. DarthVader 10:18, 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 — blanked by author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lee

Does not meet the music notability guidelines HellFire 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was not correctly listed - I've repaired it. Yomangani 10:35, 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 (also satisfies speedy deletion criterion, since author consents to deletion on the discussion page) Richardcavell 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interfak big band

Please see discussion at Talk:Interfak_big_band --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the creator admits to it but is very reasonable, see the discussion.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 attack page. Tyrenius 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron hoare

Originally tagged CSD-G1 patent nonsense. But it isn't patent. It is nonsensical in places, unsourced and unreferenced and completely unwikified, but there's no speedy criterion for that :o) so it comes here. No opinion from me - I'm just clearing CAT:CSD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:41, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Battaglia

NN biography, fails WP:Bio, no Google hits for "Stephen Battaglia"+"John Howard" [16] Optimale Gu 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Link above returns this from google news, google doesn't update every site in the world every second. - Catchpole 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "NN biography, fails WP:BIO" is not a reason for deleting, and never has been. Why don't you base a nomination on policies? Is it not verifiable, not possible to be neutral, original research, libelous, etc. Ansell 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seriously, in 100 years is someone looking at Wikipedia really going to find this at all interesting and usefull? It's not like he had a rocket launcher and hugged the guy or tried to shoot him or anything. I don't care how many google hits it gets over the next few days, it's still one small news story.. DrunkenSmurf 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. A decent kiss would have earned notability though - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this not enough renown to pass your guideline? Why is a screwdriver a fail for renown, the media certainly doesn't agree with you on that point. Ansell
  • Keep with a bit more about the incident and the subsequent reaction. ASIO, Australian Federal Police and people from other security agencies have weighed in on this now. Although Stephen meant the PM no harm, the story in it's essence is that somebody has clotheslined the leader of Australia with a weapon while his security staff have looked on. The kid has definitely been one of the most talked about people in Australia for the last few days. Drett 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the whole thing is rather a bit too fresh to determine its importance. This may be his short-lived moment of fleeting fame, or it may lead to significant reviews and become a story mentioned anytime the Aussie PM is threatened. But only the future will tell us. In the meantime, let's look at other similar instances. Jean Chretien who is a former prime minister of Canada had André Dallaire break into the official residence. This incident had a large amount of press coverage (in Canada), but André Dallaire does not have his own article, nor is there an article on the incident. Instead, it's a brief mention in the article for Jean Chretien. I propose that unless the incident muchrooms, it will fade in importance and so should just be a mention in the article for John Howard. -- Whpq 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there should be an article on him. The renown for being involved in a newsworthy event certainly fits the guideline that the nominator supplied, why wouldn't it fit there too? Ansell 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events so he passes WP:BIO Since the hug he has been mentioned in the SMH, The Age, On Melbourne Radio & every commercial television station in Australia. He has even been mentioned in South African News. The only problem with the article is that it needs a cleanup. Have a look how many newspapers have reported it Stephen_Battaglia#External_Links it was not just a little blurb in the backpage it was a full mention. Feedyourfeet 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has gotten some coverage in the media through hugging John Howard on his 67th birthday while carrying a screwdriver. It might be worth a brief mention in the John Howard article although even that might be pushing it. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A tricky one but this is a news story that will be all but forgotten in a few days time. A para in the PM's article or ASIO or Australian Federal Police at most will suffice. -- I@n 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is concerned with a famous security incident concerning a nations PM. It is notable to me, and others, if only because there was absolutely no intention. It doesn't actually fail any of the official policies. It only failed the so called "notability" guidelines, which do not prescribe anything, they only guide, for what that is worth. Ansell 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that this incident really deserves a mention, so there's certainly no need to have an article on the guy with the screwdriver. I engaged John Howard in a glaring competition in 1998 (and lost) so should I start an article about this incident as well? --Nick Dowling 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 11 Articles from the media, certainly that counts for something. Feedyourfeet 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get over it; it is a non-event of which you are continually pushing. I was once involved in a 'noteworthy event' that was published in all forms of the media; does that mean I should have my own article informing people about my claim to fame? No, I shouldn't ; and neither should this clown. Orbitalwow 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per I@n pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non-notable persona. This is a joke, right? Let me tell you, if you allow rubbish like this into Wikipedia then its reputation is going to be damaged. Are we seriously saying that anyone who slips through the ranks on a slow news day gets a mention in Wikipedia?I elliot 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that any editor disagrees that the security scare should be mentioned in Wikipedia. I think that the question here is what the best way to do that is. Should Wikipedia provide a name check to Mr Battaglia, and discuss the incident in a biographical article on a person, where readers won't even know to find it in a couple of years' time? Or should Wikipedia expand the discussion of the Prime Minister of Australia's protective detail in Australian Federal Police, currently a 1 sentence mention, to include documented security scares such as this one? The latter seems to be the better approach that will benefit readers in the long run, especially given that this article practically has a separate header for every sentence, strongly indicating that it has had to be padded in order to make it an article of any great length. So condense and merge to a section on the PM's protective detail in Australian Federal Police. Uncle G 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly agree with Uncle G on this one. I elliot 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G. It would be good to keep this information, but imo Stephen Battaglia doesn't deserve an article on his own. --Zoz (t) 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G or delete. Do not keep this article. -- DS1953 talk 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DS1953's wording. Harro5 11:13, 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 transwiki to wiktionary. the " versions were deleted since the others had better names and the content was duplicated. - Bobet 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"weapons free", "weapons hold", "weapons tight", Weapons free, Weapons hold, Weapons tight

Nominated for speedy delete as dicdef, but that's not a recognised speedy criterion. So they come here instead. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:50, 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. SynergeticMaggot 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C-Tec

non-notable according to WP:BAND, it was previously deleted in accordance to WP:PROD Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Front 242. Front 242 is notable per WP:BAND. --Craig Stuntz 13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sovex. --Craig Stuntz 19:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to make an argument for notability w/re: touring North America. Redirect would be inappropriate, as this is a distinct project, and not all members are from Front 242. --71.36.251.182 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept. I have reviewed the Notability Guidelines, and I believe that it falls well within the boundaries given. For example:

  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources. C-Tec has toured Europe, and the US.
  • 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). Their album Darker was released on Wax Trax! records, which is a very important and notable independent label. Also, Darker, and the subsequent album Cut were released on SPV, which is a large European label.
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). If widely circulated genre magazines, IE Industrial Nation, are considered "non-trivial", then this would apply. They may well have been covered in European music magazines, but I do not have verification for this.
  • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. This is probably the most applicable point. The primary members were Marc Heal of Cubanate, and Jean-Luc De Meyer of Front 242. These are two very notable bands, and are known internationally. Also, since they are the only members from their respective original bands, there should not be a call for a merge, as C-tec is a distinct enough entity to warrant its own article.

Another argument I have is that if you do a search for C-Tec on this site, you will find two pages worth of results that link to this article. If it is not notable, then why would it be so frequently mentioned?

By these arguments, I think this article certainly deserves to stay on Wikipedia. I do not understand where the issue arises that they are not notable enough to have their own article.

Addendum: I would also like to refer to their All Music Guide entry. If this is considered a "non-trivial" publication, then it verifies all of my arguments above. Sovex 16:45, 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 all. SynergeticMaggot 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece Games

Non-notable game company (684 Ghits), active only in Japan and occasionally in Europe according to article, yet has a massive template (populated entirely by similarly deletable articles). I propose that every article in the template be deleted, including the template itself, with all meaningful content moved to One Piece. A single series doesn't need 50+ empty pages. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template I'm referring to is Template:One Piece general.
I'll be adding a list of specific pages to delete as soon as I can compile one (10-20 minutes, I guess). Since nominating, I can see a couple that may need to remain. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specific pages to delete:
.. and so on. There are so many, this will take a while, but these are the biggest problems I can see. In general, many of the articles in this template are totally unnecessary (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following was moved from the in-line AfD tag at One Piece minor characters. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [reason] We need a reference guide to smaller characters. As a on going show, we get many rumours and speculations posted on One Piece related pages. For that reason pages such as this are needed purly to resolve such debates. Also, most of these characters have play extremely important roles or are generally important things to the series. If this page is deleted a lot of important information would be lost. These characters also don't warrent their own pages because they don't have enough imformation for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs) 12:33 2006-07-27
  • Keep Notable developer of popular games, popular enough to have spawned several sequels and be translated into other languages. They have had activity in America (see One Piece Grand Battle!) but being Asia-and-Europe-based would not be a reason to delete even if it was true. As for the other articles, Keep unless relisted seperately, they're different enough that we should consider each on its own merits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits is probably not a valid method of checking notability for a Japanese company, as the vast majority of references to that company will be (surprise) in Japanese. Dark Shikari 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One Piece bounties page- There is too much bits of imformation on this page for the One Piece main page. To place all this on that one page would clog it up or create confusion. It is here to act as a reference, it also helps conpare rumours and speculations since this is related to an on going show. This page collects together the information for debates, comparisons and quick referecing. Its uselfulness was proven today when I correct correct several One Piece pages because a someone came in and altered them, this included Mihawks, Luffy's, Zoro, Shanks, Portgas D. Ace. In short, its there to hault rumours and speculations and save a whole lot of trouble. Angel Emfrbl 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both the Manga adaptions and the Anime adaptions pages were orginally one with the One Piece Main page. What we found is that it cause confusion and inconsitancey with other parts of the article. When we seperated the information it allowed us to clean up the One Piece main page and gave each section a chance to grow on its on without repeated information or inconsistacies. Also, this page is fairly new and as such has not been completed yet. At least it needs a couple more weeks to bring it up to scratch with wikipedias standards. Angel Emfrbl 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One Piece Template. Size wise, we are actually trying to strink that, it is work in progress and discussion has been on going. Half the trouble is tha the series itself, One Piece, is the most populaur anime in Japan and therefore has a lot of information in general, much of it important to the storyline and worth noting on the One Piece pages. We haven't finished with the template, we need a few weeks to sort it out. Angel Emfrbl 14:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The One Piece crews being listed, that has only just been created as such and while has a list of crew and information doesn't provide much information on roles and importantce of the crews themselves. The individual Pirate Crew pages list the roles they've played, as well as information that cannot be summed up in a few short sentances. Another reason for them being the way they are is that there are so many (One Piece is afterall a show on PIRATES) that there is a lot of different crews. To put it plainly, you can't sum up EVERYTHING on the pirate crews in one list like on that page without loosing a lot of information important to the series. Angel Emfrbl 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is a world encyclopedia, not a US one. Just because they're bigger in Japan and EU than here is no reason to delete. --PresN 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything you listed for deletion is a valid compendium of information for this series. Regardless of what you think about the amount of pages and detailed information, the fact of the matter is that the One Piece franchise has alot of details in its plot, characters, and general information overall. All of these pages are usefull for compiling information on the anime series, manga, video games, etc. --Lordshmeckie 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I like to know exactly which part of the 11 categories of "indiscriminate knowledge" in WP:NOT does these pages fall under and how are these pages not covered by WP:FICT? There has been a awful lot of fiction related articles being put up for AfD recently using the claim "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" as the sole reason even though the article doesn't fall under any of the 11 categories of "indiscriminate knowledge" and are permitted by the WP:FICT notability guidelines. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would you rather have over 100 separate articles detailing filler characters? Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most as a textbook example of a series where WP:FICT has actually been followed. The standard process when faced with minor-characters type articles that are clogged up with fancruft should be to edit them to cut out needless cruft while retaining the character listings, synopses, etc. that are generally accepted as suitably encyclopedic. Article deletion is rarely required for cases such as these. — Haeleth Talk 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a keeper WP:FICTION followed, articles are all nicely kept together in one page. There may be some room for merging here and there, but I won't push it. If you find cruft in the articles, you can always edit them. I view these long pages as overflow from the main articles. This is an extraordinarily popular, highly rated, and legnthy series in Japan. Who can't help but love Mayumi Tanaka? Now, there were some copy-and-pasted episode summaries for this series that could be removed. (Unless someone cleaned them up..) I could find them for you and you can AfD those if you'd like. --Kunzite 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may be wrong, but judging from your initial comments, you, good sir, seem to be under the assumption that One Piece is primarily a game series, while it is in fact an anime/manga series. Since Naruto et al gets to keep its attack lists and such (like this, for instance), One Piece should keep its own. Concerning the minor and filler characters--would you prefer if we made individual articles for each one? To quote the WP:FICTION article:

"Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." Sigmasonic X 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nominated article is good enough and this is an overbroad nom... if necessary relist the other cruft separately. Games seem notable enough even if they're only for Japanese market. One Piece manga etc. itself is definitely notable (as in "someone thought it'd wise to get this thing marketed in this cold and distant country of mine, and now all the kids love it"), and the template seems justified. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One Piece Games is not a game company, it's just the title of an article that lists games made about the One Piece franchise. The nominated articles are different enough to require separate AfDs, but I think I would say keep for each one since they are non-redundant lists that fall under WP:FICT. - Wickning1 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that if you have a problem with the number of significant minor characters in One Piece, the person to talk to would be Eiichiro Oda. A large number of those articles do need cleaned up though. --tjstrf 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.56.149.121 (talk • contribs) .
  • I've already voted, but I'd just like to note that with a new suggestion I made, if agreed upon, both the "One Piece minor characters" section will shrink greatly and the Pirate Crew articles will become much more helpful, addressing two of your concerns. It can be seen in the discussion sections for the One Piece main article and the discussion section for One Piece minor characters. Sigmasonic X 16:30, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miyabi

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article will never amount to more than a stub. Bueller 007 11:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should all be merged into one nice large article on Japanese aesthetics --Kunzite 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it somewhere appropriate is a good idea. I would agree with merge. Maybe all of these, or maybe some. Fg2 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all that a J-J dictionary has to say about this word: "courtly", "elegant". [17] There's no Japanese Wikipedia entry for it. Agree 100% with this merge. Throw them all in there. Bueller 007 04:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Barone's

NN.the article itself says that the subject is "a small catering buissiness" Musaabdulrashid 11:20, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sack A.S.6

I came across this article while Disambiging for the term "Motor," and upon closer inspection find that it is entirely based off of Luftwaffe 1946, an alternate history fiction work that the article seems to be passing off as fact. As far as I can see, the whole thing is a falsehood, and really has no place in Wikipedia, at least not phrased as a history article.

All of its sources either display that they are untrue (unrealaircraft.com) or are based off of this Luftwaffe 1946. As I've never deleted an article before, I'm new to this whole business, so help would be appreciated. --Alex 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that sets the Arthur Sack A.S.6 apart was that it probably did exist at one point or another seeing that photos are it can be found online and that it didn't use any "fantastic" sci-fi UFO technology. The last time I checked, I was a bit undecided on the AS6 article, so if someone can show that most of it are direct quotes from Luftwaffe 1946, then I'm willing to vote for deletion.--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to find a single source that mentions it that could be considered legitamate or verifiable. The only sites that mention it are sites filled wtih conspiracy theories. Without a solid source to go off of, it's difficult to say the article is completely false. --Alex 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think I see some of the confusion. There are two similarly-named websites, one is for the aforementioned game, and another is dedicated to unrealized-WWII aircraft. Note the game site has no listings for aircraft at all, and is practically empty beyond it's "alternate history" section. Up until this moment, I had fancied myself somewhat of a geek regarding military aircraft, but I've never heard of this prototype. I can tell you the United States independently developed the so-called "Flying Flapjack", but I can't say I've ever seen hardcopy for the Sacks aircraft. Perhaps the author can return and help us out? Tychocat 09:38, 28 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 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Someone with a copy of a Jane's AWA book might come in handy here--I don't have one and google books doesn't have it either, but it might help. I did find a discussion forum arguing about whether the plane had existed or not. The consensus was that there were at least plans for a plane of this type (though the details in the wiki article may be inaccurate).--eleuthero 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:V violation. No, I can't say absolutely it's a hoax, but obviously we've questions about verifiability. I do not believe we ought to keep an article just because it might be true, since that violates WP-is-not-a-crystal-ball. I sympathize with HResearcher, but this is why you're an editor. I'm willing to nom a keep if someone can source this thing. Tychocat 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable per HResearcher (and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a reasonable guess that it is a duck, or a hoax in this case). I'm tempted to call it complete bollocks. Ah, I just did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:58, 9 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. Mailer Diablo 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep value investing

Article is not a widely used term and is redundant to information on value investing page. Goodemi 14:39, 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 delete. Oh, and it's keep, not aganist. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinleiner

Nominating for deletion as neologism verging on protologism. '+heinleiner -wikipedia' gives just 81 Google hits[18] and just 36 on Google Groups[19]. John Varley's fictional usage is already explained in his article and The Golden Globe; real-world usage appears extremely limited, and not enough reliable source material exists to support an article. --Calair 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • against: This word produces a few hundred hits on Google (web), and a usenet search turns up more, going all the way back to 1992...note that the above-mentioned Golden Globe was published in 1998. Sadly, there are no irc search engines to log the common use of "heinleiner" on the various Heinlein-related channels from at least 1995 to the present.
If you specifically exclude Varley and my own name...a very broad brush because I tend to go associate with anyone who identifies with the word, and plenty of Heinlein readers will mention Varley in other context, for many reasons...you get a result which includes a few dozen people mostly saying "I am a heinleiner", or "he is a heinleiner".
It's a rule, in several industries who wish to weigh public attention, that for every written mention of something, there are (as with roaches) a great many people aligned the same way, who are (like normal people) not bothering to state it on the record. In the TV industry, one "fan" or complaint letter is thought to represent somewhere between one and ten thousand people who didn't bother to write, for example. There are different ratios used by the publishing, music, advertising, and political industries.
We can also suppose that those who go on record as "a heinleiner", despite not being associated with various groups or cliques of that name, have their own friends, clique, or subculture from whom they derive or with whom they use that word. It is common enough that The Heinlein Society, founded by Virginia Heinlein to represent RAH, registered the domain name.--Kaz 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • against: Word is observably being used with some frequency by fans of the author, polyamorous people, libertarian individualists, etc. Though relatively small, the usage is not anomalous and, as this context exists outside of Varley's novel, it would not be sufficient to simply refer to that reference. As this article could be expanded to go into detail on a Heinleiner lifestyle, aggregates that consider themselves Heinleiners, and so forth, Wiktionary would not be sufficient either. --DiBaggioMA 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • What constitutes "good secondary sources" to you? If you're expecting a sociological text on the subject, you won't find one, but that's not a reasonable standard to hold for such an entry, either. The word and what it describes can be readily seen on blogs, discussion forums, political discussions, litcrit forums and essays, among science fiction, polyamorous, futurists, and libertarian groups. --DiBaggioMA 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RS discusses this issue: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources... self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." For more detail on what constitutes a good source, see that page, but in general self-published work that hasn't been critically vetted by anybody but the author is not it. Things like blog posts do demonstrate that there are people out there calling themselves 'Heinleiners', but they can only illustrate one person's understanding of what that word means at a time; claiming a general usage on the basis of such individual uses is synthesis, which violates Wikipedia:No original research. In general, if there are no solid secondary sources on a topic, it's not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. --Calair 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll add - I've been active on poly forums for years, and I've been a politics & sci-fi geek since long before that. I've certainly run into plenty of people who treat Heinlein as a leading light in any and all of those three spheres... but I had never encountered the term 'Heinleiner' until a few days ago, when it came up on Heinlein's article here. --Calair 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • against While, as stated above, there are no irc search engines to log the use of "heinleiner" on channels or groups, a cursory glimpse of these will show a large number of posts and a decent number of members overall. Moreover, posts in said channels and groups will suggest that the members posting identify with the same characteristics as are listed in the article in question.
The suggestion that the article needs to be deleted because the number of people who self identify as Heinleiners is lower than some arbitrary amount should not be heeded any more than the suggestion that an article about a specific tribe of indians should be deleted because the number of people who identify as of that tribe is low. Heinleiners exist, they self identify as such, they have a community, common characteristics, history and even a culture of their own. They exist and the article is valid in referencing them.--Daniel Macintyre 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)(This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • against: One reason for the relative scarcity of people who identify as heinleiners is that RAH was careful to not endorse the many people who took his works as road maps leading towards a better future. Some of the people who embraced his work were visionaries, and some were rather strange indeed, but RAH maintained the principle that he wrote what he wrote for the money, and that if anyone chose to take it as more than entertainment, then that was on their head, not his.
This lead to a situation similar to the old saw of "those that know don't tell, while those that tell don't know." After RAH's death, Virginia was kind enough to grant a small degree of recognition to some of "Heinlein's bastards," in our case that came in the form of permission to reprint portions of his works in our newsletter in order to help folks better understand what we were doing and why. A remnant of this is our expection that anyone who wants to become involved in our organization read, at the very least, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.
As one of RAH's bastard sons, I can assure you that heinleiners exist, and that we're still working to make his vision manifest since there's nothing more radical than a working model of a better way. Walt Patrick, Windward Foundation Wahkiacus 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)(This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:OR with the firey passion of a thousand suns. WilyD 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Just because its "used on IRC groups and thus can't be searched through google" doesn't mean its notable. Until it is documented by some sort of secondary source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dark Shikari 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, despite the several "against" voters arguments. Wickethewok 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not against per nom. No reliable sources available for documentation. GassyGuy 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ignore all against "votes". Danny Lilithborne 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that if it is true that "those that know don't tell, while those that tell don't know," then, unfortunately, as with all secret societies, Heinleiners cannot be the subject of a Wikipedia article, because all the information in Wikipedia articles must be traceable to a published source, per the verifiability policy, linked under the edit box in every article creation screen. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. The use of the word "against," uncapitalized, is a little unusual and idiosyncratic. To see three different accounts, none of which has created a user page, all using the same idiosyncratic style, leads me to wonder whether these users are independent of one another. Multiple and assumed identities were a fairly common theme in some of Heinlein's work... :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My impression is that they are real, separate people (one of them has a handful of edits going back a couple of years), but were invited here by one person, and being unfamiliar with Wikipedia took their lead from the first comment. Note that at the time they commented, this AFD wasn't generally visible because I missed a step in the creation (bot fixed it later), but I had notified one person of said creation, which presumably is how they got here. --Calair 00:07, 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 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Chiles

The Subject of this page does not want to be included in wikipedia. Apparently he is recieving hate mail from wikipedians who consider him self promoting. I am the original author of the page. Rockydallas 21:41, 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 redirect to Talequani Heshmat; all the content is already there. Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taleqani Heshmat

No vote. Unverifiable. I'm aware of the concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but verifiability in Wikipedia is not optional. I'll most likely withdraw the nomination if someone can reference information on this guy. Medtopic 06:52, 27 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 16:35, 4 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 and REDIRECT to VH1 Classic. JIP | Talk 09:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vault (VH1 Classic)

Not enough information to warrant its own article. The content can be easily be put into VH1 Classic. MrMurph101 19:46, 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 speedily deleted by 1ne per author request. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo-Pop

Very questionable music genre. AMG, NME, Rolling Stone, even google shows no reliable source for the existance of this genre. Seems made up by creator, hence, should be deleted. HarryCane 11:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and Adam's Card World

A contested prod. Original reason for delete was: "Blatant advertisement". Prod tag was removed giving no rationale (Liberatore, 2006). 11:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a contested prod, acutally, but appeared so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitcentral for details (Liberatore, 2006). 09:59, 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, no indication that the site itself is notable. The books are already mentioned at the author's article, a message board doesn't become important by itself just because it's started by a guy who's written books. The rest of the arguments fail to say how the site is any more notable than any other fansite; "Many established star trek sites link to this site" is more of an indication of non-notability. "There are other fansites listed on wikipedia" isn't a reason to keep this one. Insisting that this is not a fansite with no other argument to back that conclusion isn't very convincing. - Bobet 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitcentral

A contested prod (see below). Original rationale for deletion was "Apparent vanity for a fansite". No rationale was given when the prod tag was removed (Liberatore, 2006). 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a contested prod, acutally, but appeared so. (Liberatore, 2006). 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (same problem as Dave and Adam's Card World). Yomangani 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN fansite. Alexa ranking of 1,511,415. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable - there are two published books (not self-published) associated with the site. Drett 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many articles on message boards and other similar websites on WP. And there are five Nitpicker's Guides, not two. It has many users and traffic every day. I see no evidence of "vanity" in its creation, any more than in that of any other WP article. If the site is not considered "notable", then may I ask what the criteria are for notability? I know what the critieria are for general knowledge subjects, but those don't really apply to websites and messages boards, because those things don't generally produce those same criteria, like mention in books or magazines. None of the material in the article violates OR, verifiability, or any other guideline or policy that leads to deletion. It shows up in in Google Searches as being mentioned on other sites like here, it's mentioned on Star Trek and sci-fi-related websites [22], it's spawned other message board sites like this one, etc. Nightscream 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT comment Due to the database problems we lost like ~3 hours worth of changes to all articles. Many prods were accidentally removed because those prod additions no longer existed. Because of that it looks like I removed the prod tag (it also happened on a few other articles). I have no interest in this article. --mboverload@ 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking into consideration the related books, Star Trek fan-base popularity, and the website, it is notable enough to keep. Doesn't appear to be an advertisement like Dave and Adam's Card World. Dreadlocke 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN fansite named after best-selling books (instead of the other way around). I was the prodder, and the prod was lost in a database burp about a week ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rationale above. Combination 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean? Nightscream 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable. Details on notability are in Wikipedia:Notability. Dreadlocke 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why does the issue of whether the site was named after the books or vice versa pertain to its notability? Nightscream 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site has a long standing in the Star Trek fan site web universe. Many established star trek sites link to this site. It provides all to continue to submit nitpicking comments to Star Trek episodes and movies. It's a lot more than a sequel to five published books. Most particularly, the message board has inspired the trend to place nits (and occasional editorial commentary) on many various different shows and programs, though the Star Trek shows are the heart as they demonstrate the challenges of maintaining consistency in such a universe that has lasted in t.v. shows, movies, animated series and books for over forty years. The site also has had impacts on the whole idea of nitpicking media shows as well, similar to a fad as say the "Jump the Shark" website. waldnorm 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nitcentral should be kept as a Wikipedia entry simply because frankly there's no harm in having it be included here. Anyone with objections to it simply don't have to read the article, let alone ever visit Nitcentral at all. Just because a few people don't want it on Wikipedia shouldn't supersede the wishes of a lot more people who would rather it be kept here. This is certainly a case of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Please keep the Nitcentral article on Wikipedia. Thank you. User:MarkWilliam 20:51, 28 July 2006
    Comment Since I'm not involved in the Trekie community at all, I can't really comment on the actual notability of the site in question. However, "Anyone with objections to it simply don't have to read the article" is not a valid reason to keep it: similar justifications could be made for the most absurd/NN of articles. Icewolf34 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original rationale for deletion is invalid on both counts. Nitcentral is not a "fansite" (it is a vibrant online community with an eight-year history covering a wide diversity of topics), nor is the entry a "vanity" article (for one thing, the original creator of the site had nothing to do with composing the article). The cursory wording of the original prod shows that the individual who made the recommendation for deletion based it solely on their superficial perception of the topic, without doing any further investigation or providing more congruent reasons why the topic is non-notable. Such activity should be discouraged. --Toddpence 13:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a fansite and a dying stagnant discussion board where arguments are more common than discussion, people dont care about each other or anyone who has a problem with their special people. It is like a high school clique. The person who authored this article is also a moderator there and has been trying to rally the members of nitcentral to come and vote to help it avoid deletion. This is a Non Notable event, place and site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwetruck (talk • contribs) 1:17, 30 July 2006 UTC

The site has had some bickering, but no more than what I have seen in other discussion boards or blogs. Discussion is still going on, and while there's tangents, the main reason people are there is to nit the over forty year old Star Trek universe, television shows, movies, commerials, etc. This site was the most influential in terms of the art of nitpicking, and has had much more impact than the original five books have done. The original author, Phil Ferrand, has long abandonned writing books on this subject, and the web site is now a center of nitpicking that universe. As for the claim that it is "dying," each day a number of posts appear on this board--compared to most blogs and discussion boards, this site still gets a lot of activity. waldnorm

Why should any decent, non-offensive entry like that for Nitcentral be deleted just because some people who never even visit the site in the first place want it so? Don't they have anything else better to do than to find Wiki entries they want to complain about and then try to have be deleted? Do something better with your time and leave the Nitcentral entry alone! But if you want to persist in this immature and idiotic endeavor then just remember that the same can also be done for any entries you naysayers may have added yourselves just by checking your names in the "contribs" link next to your names so you might want to think twice about wanting to have someone else's entries deleted. After all, it's a two-sided blade that cuts both ways. Or to put it another way, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. User:MarkWilliam 19:19, 29 July 2006

You can't actually be threatening to delete articles contributed by people who disagreed with your viewpoints? (Not to mention Wikipedia:Point.) Icewolf34 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the arguments provided by the anonymous voter above who didn't sign his post are not only untrue (that it's a fansite, that it's dying or stagnant, that arguments are more common than discussion there, that it's cliquish), but are not even criteria for deletion. But if the person in question can point to WP policy that states that a message board moderator cannot be a Wikipedian, or alert other Wikipedians to such movements for deletion, that fansites are not noteworthy, and so forth, then please do so. Nightscream 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitcentral isn't a fansite. Nightscream 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are called Single purpose accounts, it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to solicit such activity. Dreadlocke 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment While I disagree with Nightscream's solicitation of votes, I would like to comment that Rwetruck is also a single purpose account. He is a poster who had a very poor experience at the site in question. (Note his previous comment is almost verbatim from a post I made at the site in question, where I am a moderator.) I have made some minor edits in the distance past to Wikipedia if that matters but I have decided to stand mute in this vote due to the conflict of interest. MisterMorgan
  • CommentYes I WAS a valued and appreciated Nitcentral member. Yes Nightscream abused his moderatorial powers there against me and no-one did anything about it. Yes I am upset and yes this is the only thing I have edited on wikipedia, yet. However that does not excuse nightscream from his actions or make Nitcentral any more notable. The basic fact is nightscream has lied about, or otherwise inflated how special or notable Nitcentral is due to his bias there as a moderator. The site is nothing special, abandoned by its owner and run by moderators like Nightscream.--Rwetruck 12:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, neither Toddpence nor myself are single-purpose Wikipedians. And although I did alert other Nitcentralians to this deletion discussion, I don't know for certain which of those who decided to participate here are. I apologize for instigating some to do this, as I was unaware of the SPA rule until Dreadlocke pointed it out. As for the accusation that I have lied about Nitcentral's notability, I would point out that I have not made any false statements about its notability, either on this page, or in the article itself. Nightscream 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I would like to point out that rwetruck is incorrect, NitCentral has not been abandoned by its owner. Phil may rule with a light hand, but it is still his site, and everyone there is aware of it. Further, rwetruck, do you really need to take your feud with Nightscream here as well? I am not going to post a vote either due to my own perceived conflict of interest (though I am not a moderator). Red floyd 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The site is the spin off of a book series and has enough traffic to be notable. It is the product of a recreational organization started by the book series (the Nitpicker's Guild) and considering some of the articles at Wikipedia, I believe it should be kept. Mistrx75
  • Comment Mere amount of traffic does not make a site notable. Having other sites listed on wikipedia that are not notable does bnot mean that a non-notable site should remain. Nitcentral is the advertising site for the books as well as an extension of the books.

As for the other --Rwetruck 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)This is not just about my trying to get justice done against Nightscream which did not occur on Nitcentral due to Farrand not caring what happens on the site as he has washed his hands of it as per his email. And yes Floyd I do because no one on Nitcentral did the right thing or attempted to reign in Nightscream and yelled and me to shut up bend over and take it when i was attacked by him and he said his malicious comments and abused his authority to silence someone he was involved in an argument with as a moderator. If you had taken the right and proper actions against nightscream and supported me then this would not be needed.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_27&oldid=66145569"