Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 7

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 7 September 2006 (Nominating Garbage Pail Kids (animated series) for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 6 September 8 >

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Guardian

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 2,000,000, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies

An "accrediting" group from India that lacks WP:RS and WP:V information on what it is, has 116 yahoo hits (including wikipedia mirrors), and was created by Lord Eddington (talk · contribs) in Feb. did not make any other edits. There has been plenlty of chance for this to be verfied, but it only gets white washed. According to the article on Education in India, this group is not a recognized accreditor.) Arbusto 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[1]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

An unaccredited"school" that offers free courses, and charges for "admission fees." It brings up 149 yahoo hits, including wikipedia. Fails to meet notablity ot verfiablity. Article created by someone who made three edits. This is violates WP:AD and fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Arbusto 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What category? Arbusto 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep We generally keep articles on colleges, we often keep articles on diploma mill so that people can learn that they are diploma mills. I don't know if the commentor meant Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning or Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges, both of which are on the article, but that we have both says something about the degree to which such articles are kept. GRBerry 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We often keep notable diploma mills. This one has no notablity. Has anyone written about this place other than the creator of it? Arbusto 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete appears to be a just-about-verifiable but insignificant diploma mill. Absent evidence of notable "alumni" claiming status of degrees from here, we probably don't need to give it the oxygen of publicity (or indeed take on the inevitable headache of policing neutrality). Guy 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is nothing notable or verifable. I can set up this type of "school" and promote on wikipedia in a similiar way. No news sources, alumni, academic standing, accreditation, and so on. CaliEd 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be unaccredited, but it is very verifiable. Silensor 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it unaccredited? I originally sourced it that way in the article because I couldn't find proof it was. I have seen nothing from any source other than the founder and operator of the school. How is this wiki worthy? How many students attend? How many have graduated? What degrees are offered? Arbusto 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent reliable sources needed for verifiability. Without such sources, there's only two potential outcomes for the article: it has unverifiable promotional material for the school, or its used to included unverifiable attacks against it. Neither is acceptable. Currently we're using "source by omission", which means a Wikipedian (in violation of core policy) makes factual claims based on the *absense* of information. This is unacceptable. We can only state something (like say something is an "unaccredited school") if a reliable 3rd party sources has made such a statement. We can't do original research, without violating policy, which sadly we've done by labelling this "school" as we have. The reasons for deleting this, are somewhat similiar to the ones for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --Rob 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am surprised that there is no recognition or accredition in the country of origin, India. --Antorjal 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob. Nickieee 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is ongoing debate on this school which makes it very interesting to watch. From what I see the school has special accreditation with the Indian government. The information that some have brought makes this legit in my view. It can be verified very easily. Just contact the people in India rather than making spurious attacks. One may not like what they offer but it is not enough to remove the information. Looks like some have a personal axe to grind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.71.152 (talk • contribs) 28:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above "vote" was made by an anon. IP (207.160.71.152)[2], but linked the name "Pablo" (Note: That link went to the wikipedia article Pablo, not any user name)[3] to look like an established user. Probably the creator of this article/operator of the "school." Arbusto 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The school does not have "special accreditation." The "accreditor" is ran by the operator of the school, which is not verfied by any WP:RS. See School accreditation and look at India. It is not listed as an accreditor from the Department of India's Education system.[4] A non-notable diploma mill accredited by the operator of the school. This violates WP:AD and fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dylan 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[5]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. 45 unique Ghits out of 393, the vast majority of which directories and a few other sites picking up wiki content. Appears that the only reals source of info on the organisation is the trinitytheology.org, which we are obliged to discount as unreliable. For an on-line and distance learning course, Alexa rank in the 643thousandsth appears well below radar for notability in any event. The fact that it is unaccredited is not all that relevant. Ohconfucius 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of Academic Excellence UK

Unrecognized accreditor of diploma mills. Brings up 15 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Arbusto 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scofield Graduate School

Unaccredited, no notablity asserted, and about 160 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V. (I created the original article.) Arbusto 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DawnOfMen

Non-notable PC game; fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for its violations of the crystal ball policy and per nom. Sounds like a cool game. Write up an article when it's done and it has attained some notability (and reliable sources that we can use to write an article within the bounds of NPOV). Captainktainer * Talk 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (and rather speediable IMHO). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova Shamdil

Non-notable THB 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Metamagician3000 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Bezdeda

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Though I have some doubts about the Slovaks. The lady who came second claims on her website that she would like to sing professionally. Er, so she is not and it is not what is supposed to happen when she graduates from school? And Tomas here does not seem to look at the first page of his website a lot (anymore?), there is someone there using it to offer special services and the ads on his page are doubtful too. But they have a contract, and they were 2nd and third, so I guess what is sauce for the goose ...--Pan Gerwazy 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BigHaz makes the good point that rules for notability ought to be similar across countries. I don't know a thing about Slovak singers or TV shows, but that's not a reason for me to oppose this article. This guy isn't very important, even in Slovakia, but Wikipedia with 1 million + articles has plenty of room even for those who fail to win Idol competitions on TV.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carweekly

Non-notable, not a current website THB 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Šindlerová

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I'm not going to press the issue, but you could argue that a top ten finish in something like this passes the WP:BAND criterion of Has won or placed in a major music competition. That said, I know someone's bound to say that placing 10th isn't really "placing" in the proper sense of the word, but second in a nationwide comp could well be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is a good point. I missed that WP:BAND criterion and so it probably should apply to 2nd and 3rd (although in my own anti-Idol POV I disagree with that criterion for WP:BAND in the first place), and I agree withyou that 10th is dubious at best. Irongargoyle 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, how is it possible that two guys seem to have made fifth place in that Kazakh thing? Am I missing something, or is someone cooking the books to get them all in Wikipedia?--Pan Gerwazy 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Haitzler

Non-notable THB 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Keep. Rasterman is well known by *nix users and throws up a lot of googe hits (although many tend to be forum and mailing list entries). Article would need more content than his enlightenment contribution, however, otherwise this is simply covered in the enlightenment article. --Bcsr4ever 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a lot"? Assuming there's only one Carsten Haitzler, he has some 53,200 hits.--Chealer 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was more that Rasterman (who is well known in the *nix community) gets more hits than Carsten Haitzler (a name I didn't even recognize). I'm otherwise indifferent about the deletion, although it appears that others with less google hits have WP entries. But the article as it stands doesn't really give any additional information, and so is pointless. --Bcsr4ever 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. Article needs more work and content, but he is more notable in his contribution to humanity than Squilliam Fancyson. --Bcsr4ever 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a redirect from Rasterman
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!?!?--Drahcirmy talk 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep comments relevant. --Nishkid64 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11

Article about a nonnotable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly ten libraries in the United States. [6] GabrielF 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no real content to merge with David Ray Griffin. --Hyperbole 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep in light of its publisher and unusually high Amazon rank. [7] #2,212 is really exceptionally high. Obviously, the article needs expansion, since it contains no content. --Hyperbole 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, controversy surrounding the book was noted in those articles, the were not book reviews. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A controversy is better than a review. --Striver 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now merged everything useful into the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation in anticipation of a "Delete" decision. CWC(talk) 16:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : Result from checkuser, "No malicous activity by this account"--Pussy Galore 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're gaming Amazon.com sales rank, by selling copies of the book among themselves. Withdrawing vote, though, as that sales rank is now less than 2000. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Brillante Publishing

Example of a vanity press publisher, fails WP:CORP.

I am also nominating the following pages for being only notable in conjunction with this publisher:


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've deleted the article to clean up its history and then re-created it as a redirect to Mike Scully as suggested. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scully

Non-notable and probable vanity page created by the same user who created Carweekly. There are others who have "Micahel Scully" webpages, but none which fit this biography. Jcam 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Xyrael / 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 Minutes Ago

This film seems to be non-notable. I can't find any information about release. Andrew Levine 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of any distribution. Search finds very little, mainly IMDB and Wikipedia. Fan-1967 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -AMK152 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film is notable for its structure. The director has decided to abandon the conventions of film-making and split the film into 11 minute segments. If any other film has a structure like this, I've certainly not heard of it. I don't know whether it has a distributor or not but I really don't see what that has to do with notability. There are many articles about films on Wikipedia that have not been distributed, many not even completed. I think we should be more interested in uniqueness rather than how many people have seen it. Mallanox 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splitting a movie into segments is hardly a groundbreaking innovation. In any event, a technical innovation still wouldn't make a film notable unless it had verifiably influenced more notable filmmakers. Andrew Levine 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Splittling a movie into exactly equal segments is incredibly unusual. Film making is as other artforms tend to be, organic. This is a complete departure. As a film student myself, I would expect to find a film that is organised in a unique way to be in an encyclopaedia. Also, how can a film made in 2006 be shown to have influenced anyone else? Are we to ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not really unusual at all. Playing around with time structure is one of the simplest student-film tropes. Dividing a movie into 11-minute segments of one shot each is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an independent or student filmmaker, even if nobody's done precisely that before. Besides, just doing something new without making any actual impact on filmmaking does not satisfy notability. Andrew Levine 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not a student film, this is an established director. Please refer me to a film on Wikipedia that is an example of a film split into equal segments. Unless there is another to be an example of such a film making type, the notability comes from the fact that there isn't another. I ask again, do we ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never said this was a student film, I said the concept is not far removed from the sort of thing student filmmakers would do. And it's not by an "established" director, but by a director who is not mentioned in any issues of the 72 film journals and entertainment news sources I searched on LexisNexis. There are countless films that play around with the structure of the narrative. And yes, as I said before, Wikipedia ignores an "innovative" film technique if it has not been the subject of imitation, influence, and critical examination. Recognition is what matters, not newness. It has to be recognized by the film community as unique. Andrew Levine 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As for specific films divided into segments of exactly equal length, there's Lumière and Company. Andrew Levine 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uniqueness is not notability. This film has perhaps one, but not the other. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an independent review of the film has been added to the article. Mallanox 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Borderline notability. In it's favor is the fact that its cast includes actors who have at least done other recognizable work and it got review from a serious film reviewer.Agne 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have any of these actors ever done significant work, though? The lead actor, Ian Michaels, only shows up as having held credited roles in a few other shorts - his only parts in significant movies and TV shows were bit parts like "Stoner #1" and "Guy in Chem Lab". Having a page on IMDB doesn't make an actor or a film notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, should wait until really notable to recreate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Synthetic Terror

One sentence article about a non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly 37 libraries in the United States [10] GabrielF 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps more to the point is about 500 unique hits. Not that bad actually but certainly not 47K. Also please note that it is pretty much consensus that the note on notability that you cite is very much insufficient. See the working proposal WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No evidence that Amazon UK actually keeps it "in stock". Order time is 4-6 weeks, which doesn't sound like a book that's "in stock".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Style

Probably a useful tool, but fails WP:SOFTWARE. Per the SourceForge category: "The existence of this category does not imply that any and every project (which as of December 2005 has reached 108,697) should be included here." Crystallina 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not a criterion for inclusion. Valrith 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whyever not? Popularity is an indication of notability. I actually found this deletion debate when looking to see what astyle's article looks like (there's a redirect there; make sure we get that too if this ends up deleted). The votes so far are "This is not SourceForge." Does that mean that all SourceForge projects are automatically excluded? If not, what is the criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and how is SourceForge relevant at all? Another vote is that "there's not enough for a real article." This article seems to have been created a month ago, and it's not surprising it's pretty sparse still. It's "not a significant development tool"? I'm not even sure what that means. What's significant in this context? Can someone point out a more popular or significant C++ pretty printer? Deleting this article won't offend me, but so far I don't really see any content to any of these votes. Compared to those statements, I think a statement that this is a popular tool is at least as relevant. -- Steven Fisher 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria that are used to determine if software is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia are laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. One of the main content principles is to have verifiability of article content via reliable secondary sources. That frequently isn't possible for things that fail the notability criteria. Something that is verifiable can be notable even if it's obscure and/or not popular. Similarly, something that is popular may or may not be notable. My comment that "Wikipedia is not Sourceforge" is only intended to point out the difference between the two sites - Sourceforge will accept any project no matter how insignificant (or even non-existent), while Wikipedia will not. Valrith 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the SF comment; I should have caught that. I've changed my vote (below). -- Steven Fisher 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete After reading Valrith's comments, I tend to agree with him. Merge doesn't seem necessary as there's already a mention of in in the Prettyprint article, with a brief description and link, which suffices until there's greater notability. -- Steven Fisher 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination Science

Yet another barely notable conspiracy theory book article by User:Striver. This book is currently ranked #253,068 at Amazon.com. The article claims that the book "has been widely praised as a ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination studies", but the supporting link is the amazon.com page of ANOTHER book. GabrielF 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd love to hear what criterion of the cited guideline you think this book satisfies. Pascal.Tesson 06:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Show

Delete. Non-notable wrestling show. Prod'ded twice, tags removed both times by author. No independent sources can be found to even verify its existence. ... discospinster talk 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete his notability as an academic, even in the context of the controversy, has not been established by the comments -- Samir धर्म 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Woodward (psychologist)

Completely non-notable academic. Only claim of notability is that he teaches that 9/11 is a US conspiracy in his psych classes. However, he fails the criteria at WP:PROF. This article was created as part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a zillion different non-notable conspiracy theorists and their books. Many of his articles have been deleted through AfD or are in the AfD process. GabrielF 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This point ought to be explained clearly somewhere for future reference. I often read the argument "this prof is notable because he edited a book". Now, as people familiar with academic circles can all confirm, this is very much commonplace and definitely not a sign of notability. Tons of conference proceedings or books gathering a series of articles on a given topic are published every year and all have two or three editors whose job is to run the peer-review process. This is an important task but it is a technical one and I have personally attended conferences in which the cited editors include students who were generous enough to help with that job. Bottom line is: being the author of a book published by a prestigious academic press is indication of notability, being the editor means that there are other academics who are grateful you volunteered for the job. Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counter comment any academic with 30+ years of university work has that much citations on scholar google. I got a university position two years ago and look [12]. Pascal.Tesson 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Counter Comment Write "Finite Minoid analysis of WTC destruction using a semigroup of homomorphistic rodents carrying explosives" and start filling in Pascal Tesson. A background in Cold fusion may help. Publish your theory in a blog so as not to attract peer review and don't make conspiracy accusations or BYU will suspend you. --Tbeatty 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I wrote that paper, Striver (talk · contribs) would fill in my entry. :-) Pascal.Tesson 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Academic achievements seem to be well under the bar for notability, but when you add in the controversy, can he squeak in? According to the article, he was singled out for fairly harsh criticism by the state's governor. IMO this debate should probably focus on whether the amount of controversy is notable, and not just on whether he's a notable academic (he's not). My Alt Account 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The interesting part of this article is the response that this person has engendered. Having a governor and senator calling for the end of tenure is quite notable. JASpencer 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete WP:PROF says in part "Similarly, an academic involved in significant current events is likely to be notable as a person under the general WP:BIO guidelines." I don't see adequate evidence that he meets WP:PROF without that sentence. The relevant part of WP:BIO is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" While we have two reliable independent sources, they appear to be a single day's news event. Thus, WP:BIO is not met. Failing both, deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF. Not a notable academic by Wikipedia standards. Number of citations on Google Scholar is low, and includes books he edited. And as Pascal Tesson points out above, editing a book is a far cry from writing a book (and there's no citations of authored books for Woodward here). Class controversy is not quite a storm in a teacup but is certainly not encyclopedically notable to justify an article on Woodward. Brief mention in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article would be ok. Bwithh 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep even if he was not notable as a scholar, wich i contest, the controversy that has made him cited in large newspapers alone makes him notable.--Striver 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep has recieved decent press coverage and has been published multiple times, I think that suits [[WP:BIO}}. . . --mathewguiver 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news database... and just about all academics get published multiple times (that's why we have WP:PROF).Bwithh 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my nomination of this article came across as being in bad faith, but that was not my intention. If you look at the 9/11 "Truth" Movement articles on wikipedia you'll see a gazillion stubs of people and books who are not notable. For example, books that are owned by fewer than forty libraries in the world, films that are released only on the web to almost no press coverage, individuals who have no claim to notability other than a few one sentence quotes in newspaper articles, etc. How could any of these articles ever become encyclopedic and NPOV? It is entirely reasonable for a user browsing this section of wikipedia to feel like we're promoting, legitimizing and popularizing complete nobodies who have a viewpoint many find offensive. I have no problem with Striver personally - his contributions to articles pertaining to Shi'a Islam seem to have been highly praised - but I don't want wikipedia to become a soapbox for every self-promoting nobody with an idea.
As for this specific article, please remember that we're talking about an academic who fails the "professor test" (i:e is not any more notable than the average professor). The only way this article might be encyclopedic is if the controversy is encyclopedic, but will anyone remember it a few months from now? Although it just started a week ago, a google news search for "William Woodward" reveals only 35 unique articles related to the controversy, with a number of these being very brief mentions, blog posts and letters to the editor. Nobody will remember this guy in a month. GabrielF 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Gamaleil--Pussy Galore 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned for trolling[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about teenage fun

Kind of a nice idea, but "about teenage fun" is such a nebulous, subjective, elusive definition that this list will never be able to satisfy WP:V or WP:NPOV. I wouldn't mind a renaming if someone could come up with a way to satisfy those criteria. Dylan 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (see comment at the end). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mcilvaine

Non-notable bio. Basically a relative of a 9/11 victim who believes 9/11 conspiracy theories. He gets all of 183 google hits (this is a mistake - see below) [16]. This is part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a gazillion non-notable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. GabrielF 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN coverage--Striver 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just added more news coverage of him. --Striver 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And more about his son... no way this article is going to be deleted now... --Striver 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So he's on a barely notable panel, may be featured in a non-notable movie and is one of thousands of 9/11 victim's families. That doesn't establish notability. In the articles that you mention he's generally one of several people quoted for a particular position. Further, I've been quoted in a handful of newspaper articles do, does that make me inherently notable? GabrielF 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN? Any international one? If yes, they you are also notable per WP:N: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"--Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue for notability due to extensive media coverage, add the links here to make yoru case, but don't clutter an already content-thin article with dozens of media "coverage" (which you seem to be doing often lately, btw). Artcles are not supposed to be collections of media coverage. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, I'm not sure you understand that what you're quoting is exactly why most people arguing for deletion believe that pretty much all the current references are useless. Primary subject means that the article is about McIlvaine. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above vote has been reported to ANI. Just FYI. --Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you just did that :-( Please reconsider that type of behavior, it does NOT help make AfD talk any more productive, it just wasted a lot of peoples' time and stirred up bad feelings. My Alt Account 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO --Doc 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sub-trivial conspiracist minutia. Tom Harrison Talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very Weak keep He isn't even that prominent in the 9/11 truth movement and most of these news mentions are minor but there are still a lot of mentions in the news. JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems he has become a celebrity victim, frequently called upon by the media for a nice soundbite. --Salix alba (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also, I vote "keep" as per: User:Striver.
    User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article. Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages?
    User:GabrielF, in initiating the AfD, originally stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits on google, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. How is someone who is mentioned in all of these reputable sources Non-notable? Travb (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment keyword here is mentioned. All these report on 9/11 families stuff a number of times a year. Some of them will have a quote of the form "bla says Mr. X whose wife died in the attack". So what? I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles. Pascal.Tesson 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should attempt to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Accusing others of POV [18] ?--zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response on your user page, I deleted the comments you are refering too. Travb (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. "I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles." What does the motor vehicles have to do with this article? Clever analogies do not prove your point, therefore the person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious at best, malicious at worst. Travb (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check my comment below - in a nutshell, the profusion of links at the bottom is basically fluff, with many of the links not mentioning the article's subject at all. Of the major news coverage, two give him 1-2 sentences of coverage, and only the MSNBC interview transcript has him as the primary subject of the coverage. In short, the links to "sources" at the bottom are misleading.My Alt Account 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cranks who get substantial media coverage. Who cares if he buys the conspiracy theory, that's not what this is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver - Glen 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per MONGO and nom. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From what I can tell, he hasn't actually been the subject of any of the articles, just a source. He also apparently hasn't done anything like founding an organization or some other thing that would make him of note. However, he does meet one of my personal criteria: Would somebody see his name in the news, wonder who the guy is, and come to Wikipedia to find out? I also disagree strongly with the notion that he couldn't be notable because of his opinions. William Pietri 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well actually it seems that anytime he's mentioned in the news it's always accompanied by "whose son..." so I think we're safe on that side! Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's been around for a year and therefore he is clearly not a sockpuppet created for this debate. He's obviously done enough edits that he probably knows a thing or two about wikipedia. My Alt Account 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When is the list of people coming out that believe that 9/11 was caused by islamic fundamentalist terrorists who flew planes into the towers, the pentagon, and intended to do more damage? Pseudotumor 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's been around for a month. If you think it's a sockpuppet account, say so, and provide some evidence. A real joke/sock account would look more like this: User:Wajwt
COMMENT Striver would like you to think that, but it really isn't true. If you look in detail at the many articles Striver mentioned you'll see that he is usually a tiny quote in a large article. The Independent article for example (not accessible online) contains SIX PAGES of rememberences from a number of people. The 3/5/2004 CNN article has a one sentence quote from McIlvane and he is one of four 9/11 family members quoted. I can't find the 3/18/05 CNN article but the selection quoted on the website Striver is using as a source doesn't mention Mcilvaine. The BBC article has a one sentence quote from him and he is one of six people quoted. The NYTimes article is a one sentence "Quote of the Day" feature and only says that he attended a 9/11 commission hearing. None of these are notable. GabrielF 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. The person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious. I would also like to bring up the fact that the person who initiated this AfD.[19] Did not follow the suggested guidelines of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate." Travb (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he he he. Apparently some believe that the answer is yes provided he's quoted 17 times. Pascal.Tesson 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user is a possible sockpuppet single purpose account. See contribs and talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ^^^ This user is failing to assume good faith. As I've already told GabrielF, either request a checkuser, or kindly withdraw your allegations.--Pussy Galore 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT : Pascal.Tesson, and Arthur Rubin, you may be interested in the result of the checkuser I instigated against myself. "No malicous activity by this account". I hope you will now have the decency to apologise for your lurid allegations--Pussy Galore 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the checkuser result states "the activity from your IP address is completely above-board" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ye, my mistake. I have disabled the RPC Locator service on my doze box, therefore leaving me unable to copy and paste. Many thanks for the clarification. --Pussy Galore 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly either a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or a long-time anon user. It doesn't matter which, except that only "he" could verify the latter, as the checkuser people wouldn't know which IP to check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment [Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. -- William Pietri] --Pussy Galore 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment There was a comment posted by myself which was removed from the above section by Arthur Rubin. It showed the flawed logic of the argument of Pascal.Tesson. I would reinstate it myself, but sadly lack the neccessary tools to do so. --Pussy Galore 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin hasn't removed anything of yours in this article. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to have removed a comment of yours. Others are welcome to review my edit and restore it if they think it's a useful contribution to the discussion. William Pietri 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sockpuppet is probably too strong a term. But I think single purpose account is a fair assessment and I have edited my above comment to reflect that. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: Even though the consensus was fairly clear on "delete", I need to say something, especially since I've crossed paths with Striver and I know I will again (if this AfD log is a significant sample). My idea is that if an article needs tens of sources just to prove that its subject is notable (and fails to do so in view of a majority of people in its AfD), then the subject is not notable enough. About this person in particular, I suggest looking at a similar example: Juan Carlos Blumberg. For a few months he was just a father who'd lost his son to criminals. Appeared dozens of times in TV and newspapers, but he wasn't notable, just one more of a series of victims, until he led a march demanding security which gathered 200,000 people. That is notable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. – [ælfəks] 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon's inspiration

Delete. Looks like original research. Besides, I can't imagine anyone searching for "Joss Whedon's inspiration" on Wikipedia. Article was previously proposed for deletion (Nothing here that can't be said (preferably with references) in the Buffy article). ... discospinster talk 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Author removed AFD header. I put it back - Richfife 04:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twice - Richfife 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carcando

Contested Prod. Company that started business yesterday. Can't find any sources on it at all, or any search hits for the name that seem even possibly relevant. Fails WP:CORP, WP:V. (When article was created, it said the company was registered September 6. When Prod'ed as "company which started doing business today" author changed the date to May 6, but has since changed it back to September. Fan-1967 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batphone

The available information about a bat-phone is so minimal that it's hard to envision this article ever being more than a stub. It's an extraneous article that doesn't add to the value of the bat-phone, which is mentioned in the Batman Article. A mention from Nip/Tuck does not notable make. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Xyrael / 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Allen Smith

Nomination for Deletion A tragic story, but no encyclopedic notability is asserted, nor, I think, can it be asserted. There are thousands of new murder/non-negligent manslaughter investigations around the world every year, a large chunk of which go unsolved (in 2004, there were 16,137 cases in the United States, of which 62.6% were solved[21]). What makes this particular case so special? It happened on a cruise ship (so it got more media attention than the average killing because it reminds people of an Agatha Christie murder mystery), and it happened on the victim's honeymoon (an even better news story for readers or viewers relaxing at home). Plus the widow got upset with cruise line and caused a public relations crisis for them. That's about it. Even Taken separately from the investigation, none of the people involved are encyclopedically notable in their own right - they are not even notable on a local newspaper level. If the case was extraordinarily more horrible and infamous than the average or it led to some new law or change in police techniques or an important book - these effects would be encyclopedically notable. But it did not. Wikipedia is not a police records archive and it is not a news report database or an echo chamber for whatever the news media is reporting (much of which is not encyclopedically notable.). Bwithh 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Actually I did not claim that. I said that the people taken out of the context of the investigation (that is, if the disappearance/killing had never happened), those people would not be notable even on a local newspaper level. (my poor use of "Even" as a sentence starter may have beeen a little confusing but still I don't see how it leads to the claim that Pinkkeith says I made) The missing person/victim ran a liquor store with his father. And please note my emphasis of ENCYCLOPEDIC notablility - Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT a news report database. Again, newspapers, TV news shows, news websites - even ones with international scope and reputation (- carry much news (including news which is simply chosen for its sensationalistic qualities (Pinkkeith uses examples from MSNBC, CBS and CNN (Larry King Live!!) - US news networks are especially prone to sensationalism ) and non-news which is not encyclopedically notable. Media coverage is not sufficient cause for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you tell me why this story is encyclopedically important? or even, why is it notable for major channel news coverage beyond its sensationalistic qualities? Bwithh 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup I'm sure these lines from WP:BIO (which remember, as I'm always hear, is a guideline) will be tossed at my nomination:
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events - but George Allen Smith did not achieve any renown or notoriety from dying/disappearing. Renown/notoriety relate to the widely celebrated/honoured or denounced/dishonoured skills/traits/feats of a person. Doesn't make sense to apply here.
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. - I believe the key phrase here is non-trivial. I submit that the subject selection of some or even much news coverage, even in major channels, is trivial by encyclopedic standards. The guy disappeared or was killed during his honeymoon on a cruise ship... that's it. not exactly edifying. Bwithh 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the key word is "multiple". WP:BIO clearly states that "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage". Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make some very sound and reasonable arguements. You are deleting this article based on notability of the individual. The real question is what makes one notable and what doesn't. It is all opinonated in my eyes, even the word "trivial" is an opinonated term. There are many articles that are based on information taken from media reports, Steve Irwin being the most notable and recent example. I don't think that what the source is and what the readers opinon of the source ought to be grounds to delete an article. In my eyes, if a story is reported by multiple national sources, it makes it notable. I would like to withdrawl my vote to keep and vote neutral on this nomination. I think it is notable but it is boarderline. --Pinkkeith 11:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because the media reports it (because they choose to endlessly milk every mile out of tearjerkers rather than newsworthy stories say about genocide in the Sudan, or war in Uganda, or u.s. troops building schoolhouses and repairing sewers in Iraq) , doesn't make it or the person involved notable. Like JonBenet Ramsey (who was 1 of like 6000 girls gone missing and killed in 1996), George Allen Smith's death might be regrettable and worth mourning, but he's one of tens of thousands...he's a mere statistic and despite the sensationalist hype, he won't amount to much more than a statistic. Therefore, delete. —ExplorerCDT 06:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize of course with ExplorerCDT's view of the JonBenet case though I would also note that that case generated a substantial cultural criticism (still sensationalist) discourse which led to JonBenet being used (justifiably or not) as an icon of the ills of American society. This probably generated enough material for encyclopedic notability (one could argue that JonBenet is related to certain trends in US cultural commentary) - but in any case, far far more material than has been generated there than for the George Allen Smith case. I don't see how the Smith case has much potential at all for JonBenetesque commentary - the decline of morals in international waters? the crime rate on cruise ships? Bwithh 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Media circus \= encyclopedic notability (how do you type "does not equal"?). (Just a comment on JonBenet which ExplorerCDT brought up--perhaps that's different because her death engendered widespread discussion on kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh notes, pertains to wider cultural trends.) Pan Dan 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The story is a sad but intriguing one. However, the article is full of speculation and conjecture, and thus is not encyclopaedic. If you laid out the pertinent facts end to end, you are down to about five lines:
  1. Mr Smith disappeared on his honeymoon cruise.
  2. Mr and Mrs Smith had an argument during the night of his disappearance
  3. Blood was found in the couple's cabin and foul play is suspected
  4. Mrs Smith received undisclosed settlement from the cruise company
  5. Mr Smith's body was never found
An article on the wife would make a more interesting choice. At least there's the potential to flesh out or for her to become known for something else. Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: "51,000 Google hits." If you actually click through, you see that there are only 182 hits, and then it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 182 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." I guess that means there are only 182 unique Google hits. Pan Dan 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Most of the "51,000" hits are either regenerations of blog entries or AP-wire postings. Keeping it based on the churning of the same story over and over again is specious at best. Also, doesn't this violate Wikipedia's policy on memorials? —ExplorerCDT 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Google hits were not the only reason I voted to keep. The story was covered, as said above, by Larry King, MSNBC, CNN, etc. The guy clearly passes WP:BIO, whether we like it or not.--Cúchullain t/c 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are plenty of trivial (both encyclopedically and/or in general) trivial news stories on Larry King, MSNBC, CNN etc. WP:BIO is a guideline which calls for non-trivial coverage of people or that the person has renown or notoriety. As I have argued above, Allen doesn't fit into either requirementBwithh 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he achieved plenty of notoriety through the media coverage, nor do I find the references non-trivial, however much I wish the media's time had been focused elsewhere.--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I don't think it's right to say he achieved "notoriety." According to dictionary.com, "notorious" means
1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler.
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.
I don't think either of these applies to Smith. Neither does "renown" (also mentioned in WP:BIO), which means "widespread and high repute; fame." Pan Dan 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what "notoriety" means. I've said my piece already. --Cúchullain t/c 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the dictionary definition because I think it supports the thesis that Smith is not "notorious." Wasn't suggesting you don't know what it means. (Nor am I now suggesting that you were suggesting that I was suggesting that you don't know what it means.) Pan Dan 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Pan Dan 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now we have that cleared up. ;)--Cúchullain t/c 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by DVD R W under CSD G1. MER-C 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellguard99

'Net nonsense, vanity article, no redeeming value Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Soulfly (album). - Bobet 23:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbklatt

Non-notable THB 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. As said, '"new and growing sport" automatically implies a lack of notability.' —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Live

Ad, no evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* i say keep it. It is a good summary of a growing sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.186.171 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm the author of the article, considering Battlefield Live is a new and growing sport, I am unable to give references that aren't primarily about the equipment and perks of the sport, which, if I linked or provided, could be misconstrued as advertising, I'm able to give references from the actual company who originally created the game system, but again, it could be considered advertising or generally biased, please advise me how to proceed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjuroDP (talk • contribs)
  • I've added the references section to this article in hopes of saving it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjuroDP (talk • contribs)
  • Comment "new and growing sport" automatically implies a lack of notability. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added new 2 new references, one of which to counter "Notability" debate, will also add external links soon linking various official Television and News coverage on Battlefield Live in hopes of ending the question of prominance on Battlefield Live.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun and Hezbollah: From terrorists to political parties

Appears to be some essay-like comparison between Irgun, Lehi, and Hezbollah. The article is unencyclopedic and in my opinion rather pointless. —Khoikhoi 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRAEDO

Non-notable. Does not appear to have members. THB 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Re-checking (I don't know what I did wrong before), I see that craedo coalition has < 50 ghits. And searching for just craedo gets 150 unique ghits. Pan Dan 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any business or organization can join the Vancouver Board of Trade. That in itself does not lend legitimacy (or notability). -THB 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the funniest way of stating it I ever read. Thanks for brightening up my day! -THB 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, as per nomination. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cole

Article doesn't not assert notability of subject; article also doesn't cite sources. Bumm13 04:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006

Do I really need to explain? Monthly results pages are not needed TJ Spyke 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I am also adding:[reply]

  • Delete I appreciate this is someone's hard work, but good grief imagine if every "sporting" code on Wikipedia had a new page each dedicated to a monthly update - it would be a nightmare! Thats why we dont do it, sorry - Glen 05:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Fancruft. RobJ1981 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, How is this different from an episode guide for a TV series? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Numerous television series have articles for every episode on Wikipedia. Impact is a television series, and should thus be treated similarly. McPhail 11:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously torn I wrote almost all of these. In a way, it's fancruft. Yet also, it keeps in line with episode guides that are permitted for television shows. I don't know what to do. --Kitch 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize. I like the seasonal layout, cf. Episodes of Lost (season 1) et al. - Trevyn 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Fancruft, as the main author has admitted - not suitable for an encyclopedia. I recomment to User:Kitch and other authors that they move the content to their own wiki at Wikia, so they don't have to feel that their work is simply going to waste. Bwithh 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Total fancruft for a second-rate wrestling promotion. Renosecond 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to have to vote Keep all & reorganize here. This is a useful resource for someone who wants to look into the history of the show, and as someone pointed out above it really isn't any different than all the TV shows that have articles on individual episodes. Author should find a way to source the articles, however, even if it means simply listing the episode in question as a source. VegaDark 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: big wrestling fan, big TNA fan. But... Delete - this is taking things pretty far in considering that this is an encyclopedia. Consider that these results are pre-scripted each week, unlike other sports, and the storylines in pro wrestling are far less deep than other television shows, and I think the need for constant and continuous tracking of results in an encyclopedia is very slim. Episodes of shows like Lost, etc., have long-running and deep storylines that might be hard to track, and it would make sense to have a summary available (though if they came up, I'd opt for deleting those too, as I think that's kind of silly to include in an encyclopedia). Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Yes, people, I'm sure wrestling is a fine sport and all, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a wrestling fanzine. Aren't there specialist wikis for such content? Sandstein 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glen has a point, what would happen if there were articles like "NBA results, December 2005" and "NFL results, September 2005"? It's just too much. TJ Spyke 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly have trouble understanding the concept of an encyclopedia that wants to exclude knowledge of this depth just because it can. Yes, it's fairly trivial knowledge, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge, but these articles are not an indiscriminate collection--they're nicely organized, formatted and compartmentalized, and will only get more so as they live on. Even Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia mentions the word's origin as "the idea of collecting all of the world's knowledge into a single work". M-W says it's "a comprehensive reference work". Why limit ourselves to the length encyclopedias have been in the past? If Wikipedia isn't meant to be a true encyclopedia, then that's fine too, but I haven't seen the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia page yet. -- Trevyn 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is not indiscriminate information merge is fine too Yuckfoo 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was not my initial reaction, but upon consideration: regardless of whether you look at this as "sporting results" or as "television episodes", deleting these would leave a large number of articles behind which are no more notable or encyclopedic. I can't seem to find even a proposed policy on TV episode notability - I think it would be best to try to hash one out before singling out articles for deletion whilst plenty of other articles on episodes of TV shows I've never heard of remain. --Stormie 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Edgecution 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, TV episode guides per Stormie, Trevyn etc. Merging would also be fine, as would splitting the article into separate pages for each bout. Kappa 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Seperate pages for each bout would be a total nightmare if it becomes policy. Take WWE for example: 3 shows a week, average 3-6 matches per show. That's a potential 18 new articles per week now let's take this back over several years. I'm also abstaining from the vote as I am suffering a conflict of conscience between episode guide and listcruft. –– Lid(Talk) 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some TV shows do not need articles for episodes, I doubt anyone would support creating articles for individual episodes of news shows or Monday Night Football games for example. Several non-notable episodes of Raw have had articles delete here or in the process of deletion(Raw Roulette and Raw Bowl for example). TJ Spyke 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Or at least move it to a wrestling oriented Wiki. Someone obviously spent a lot of time working on this, and it is well organized, I'd hate to see such dedication deleted. And besides, monthly results for pro wrestling is a pretty good idea to me.-User:Gruntyking117

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kulturmax Multimedia

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. An article could theoretically be written at this title, exploring the role of women within Star Trek, but this is essentially contentless.--SB | T 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Star Trek

Nothing here is not adequately covered in List of Star Trek characters. As it stands, the article reads like listcruft, Star Trek cruft, etc. Crystallina 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst for Birmingham

Originally tagged as a copyvio from the group's website, but apparently permission has been received to post this. Unsurprisingly, the text is unformatted and reads like ad copy. Group gets 1240 Google hits, and we're #1. Opabinia regalis 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't have an article for the Atlanta Social Syndicate (yes, it spells "ass") bceause they're non-notable, and we shouldn't have one for this equally-non-notable group. Unencyclopaedic self-promotion/advertisement. DELETE —ExplorerCDT 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Metamagician3000 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Outreach Opportunity League (C.O.O.L.)

Clear copyvio (and labeled as such by creator, actually), and I was intially going to simply speedy delete it as copyvio. However, I am not sure how significant this organization is. Unless the opinion is that it's acutally notable and the article is rewritten to remove copyright infringement, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factorgram

Non-Notable Portmanteau apparently invented by author. This link: [26] strongly suggests he has an agenda. The term pops up here and there being used to mean other things. Richfife 05:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, and I'll redirect it to Bewick's Wren as suggested (note that you don't have to wait for an AfD to merge and/or redirect an article). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle wren

Source seems to ne news item; subspecies almost certainly the Vancouver/Seattle area pupolation described as Thryomanes bewickii ariborius Oberholser, 1920 Original description, but "Birds of North America Online" cites Phillips, A. R. (1986): The known birds of North and Middle America. Part I: Hirundinidae to Mimidae; Cerciidae (A. R. Phillips, Denver, CO) as source for considering it invalid. Not recognized by AOU. Could have been recently resurrected as valid subspecies, but unlikely given Bewick's Wren subspeciation pattern. Dysmorodrepanis 05:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - there is not much to merge, and I will add the information on the Bewick's page. Dysmorodrepanis 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imediabiz

Non notable company. Prod removed. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio. -- Steel 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecliptical Realms

WP:WEB, nn gaming group. As a side note, User:Krayt88 recently went on a spamming rampage, adding this site to about a half dozen external link sections. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, due to lack of participation and necessary discussion of Evrik's sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robeks

Hardly of encyclopedic interest. Most certainly does not meet WP:CORP. The article was clearly created as spam although that content has thankfully already been flushed out. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/05/22/daily60.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_18_28/ai_n16419168

--evrik 18:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and self withdrawal. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mako of Akishino

Not inheritley notale, makes no claim to be notable just royal cruft. (I'm also nominating Princess Mako of Akishino) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (in some form). No valid arguments for delete apart from the nomination, and redirection is governed by the normal workings of consensus, not AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NonProductive

Not Notable —ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended this article for deletion as this is a not notable radio program on WRSU at Rutgers University and isn't really known outside the Rutgers University community. Heck, I graduated there and knew one of the hosts during my years "on the banks" and didn't even know it existed until the creator of this article tried to add a link to this article from the Rutgers article. This article does not meet the notability guidelines/policies. Furthermore, suspecting that the creator of this article is somehow involved in the program, this meets the guideline under WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, self-promotion, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not google and this article might fall under the categorisation of Vanispamcruftisement. At best, this article's content should be condensed and merged with WRSU, and this article deleted.—ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for the content needs to be retained per GFDL, so if content is merged, you cannot delete the edit history. Besides, why not redirect so readers who search for this end up at the place where the article is? - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It may not be surprising, but my reasoning is for keep, and I’ll explain why. The article is notable as the subject has aired consistently over the past 10 years with approximately 500 shows. There are many shows that have aired more and many that have aired less, but I’d like to suggest that there is a large enough presence to justify the need for an article. There is the notion that this is a vanity/promotion page – which is perfectly understandable, but I believe may be merely a gut reaction. During the show’s 10 year run it has had a rotating panel of hosts, none of which are still involved with the show after their term, and dozens of cast members who likewise graduate to new projects unrelated to the program. While this may not eliminate the fear of vanity page, I believe this weakens the idea that anyone would benefit greatly by using this for self-promotion or narcissism. While I have been the heaviest contributor to the article so far (also reasonably taken as evidence of non notability) we should take into consideration that the article is new, the show is about begin its newest season, and that more edits and searches by Wikipedians should be expected in the coming months (assuming no one is dissuaded to “waste their time” on an article marked for deletion). Some of those who have commented for deletion have remarked that it is unlikely that anyone knows about the show outside the Rutgers Community, and that they themselves haven’t heard of it until after graduation or being pointed directly to it. While that may seem like a logical argument for deletion, we are all aware that there are numerous articles on subjects we were not personally aware of – and that personal non-notability does not translate over the universal non-notability. Also, many years have passed since the nominator may have been peripherally aware of the show, and as such it has expanded considerably and become far more popular under the control of subsequent hosts. With regard to the idea that few outside Rutgers would be aware of the show, please note the number of articles depicting campus life elements that have become popularized throughout the state and country (i.e. Grease Trucks) - while this precedent does not make for a solid rule of inclusion, it hopefully will encourage others to think twice before marking for deletion based on a “potential lack of public knowledge as interpreted by personal experience”. Finally, while merging and redirecting with WRSU is an understandable alternative to deletion, I feel it would only serve to divert attention from the other aspects of the radio station – which is far more then a paragraph on broadcast range and three paragraphs on just one of their many shows.

Aside from rebutting the argument for deletion, I would like to make another argument for keep. The nature of the collegiate setting makes for a constantly rotating student body, which has experienced 10 graduating classes since the premiere of the show. As a result, no one currently involved with the show, and few people who currently listen to the show, were around for the history of the series. Incoming freshmen were eight years old when the show premiered, and are unlikely to have been fans from the start. It is for these people (who will undoubtedly use the popular free encyclopedia to discover more about the show) that the article was written – to do exactly what Wikipedia articles are designed to do – inform and educate the masses.

When reviewing articles for deletion me must be positive in outlook, not merely assume the worse. The negative assumption here is that the article will be useless to any Wikipedian and that it could only serve to promote those behind it – the positive assumption is that it is a neutrally drafted article that contains information that may be useful to individuals curious enough to research a program that is new to them.

Of course, you are all free to make up your own minds as you see fit. Good luck! ParticularlyEvil 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, perhaps unintentionally, your use of quotation marks imply that I stated "maybe these people will be interested to find out more and then this show will become notable...” These were never my words, but merely your interpretations of my words.

The argument is not circular, predictive, nor begging for a special exception for this article. Nor does it admit it whole or in part that the article should be deleted/redirected or anything short of kept. I rebutted your opinions and stated my own interpretation on them. Furthermore, if you feel running off a list of logical fallacies backs up you argument, then I suppose your comment was worthwhile to you.

It is clear your vote remains with delete, which I respect, and mine remains with keep, which I hope you will respect in kind. Rather then keep the momentum this has developed as a debate between two users, I think it is best to sit back and let others voice their opinions with both our standpoints here to look upon. I would like to see if the article will survive on its own merits. ParticularlyEvil 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhopper78 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)I'd like to add my two cents here. Once again, full disclosure; I am one of the people mentioned as a member of the Non-Productive show cast in the article. I was not a contributor to the wiki article, but heard about it through another party. I vote that the article be kept. I disagree with the notion that the show is non-notable. I was part of the show's early cast and crew. After graduation, I lost contact with the show and had assumed that the show no longer existed. In the not-too-distant past, I learned that the show was alive and well, having passed through the hands of many different hosts, cast members and crew throughout the years. Non-Productive has now been a part of the Rutgers community for approximately a decade, and it appears to have picked up enough self-sustaining steam to remain a part of that community for well beyond the forseeable future. It is, has been, and will be the result of the combined efforts of a wide spectrum of diverse contributors and will continue to an assest to the local community for a long time to come. It does not nor has ever required any outside promotion, and I do not believe that the article was written in that vein. Rather, I interpret the article (ackowledged to still be in its infant form) to be a growing record of this collaborative effort.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brandon (porn star)

Article is about a living person. Brandon probably qualifies for an article, as he won "Gay Performer of the Year" at the GayVN Awards in 2002 and 2003 (when he tied with Colton Ford), but this is less than a stub, and is sourced only via IMDB; the entry there reads like a fan wrote it. —Chidom talk  06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Chihuahua

Website with no evidence of passing WP:WEB; no Alexa rank, only 104 unique GHits for "Purple Chihuahua", very few seem relevant (most are related to plush toys and the like). Failed prod. ~Matticus TC 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, copyvio. Guy 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang (song)

Speedy delete. No notability asserted. Songs are not notable by default per WP:SONG. Ohconfucius 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect (already done). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague

just a definition and wiktionary already has the definition Goldenrowley 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jogocyde

Non-notable fictional narcotic featured in a RPG which doesn't have its own article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete and redirect to Steve Irwin - created by sockpuppet of banned user Universe Daily per evidence. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi Irwin

Daughter of Steve Irwin. Not yet notable I@n 08:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a perfect argument for redirect. She's notable soly for her father. According to this user. -Mask 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable enough as she is, and getting more and more attention every day. She's listed as support crew and have her own pages at crocodilehunter.com, she's been on several other TV series and Stevo was actually filming stuff for her series when he died, And she wasn't born onto TV, she was born on TV, since Stevo decided to bring the entire crew along (met by Terry's "you didn't think you could find any more people to bring in here?"). So she isn't just known for being Stevo's daughter, she's known for being Bindi Irwin. Hdw 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is noteable enough anyway (though barely) and Steve just boosts that. - Blood red sandman 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE KEEP She was just set to create her own wildlife show on the discovery kids channel, how could she not stay?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.195.118 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 September 2006.
  • STRONG KEEP! Bindi Irwin is already a well known and discussed person and will be even more now her famous father has passed away. She'll follow the footsteps of Steve Irwin, in fact she already does. We need her and this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.40.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep As per VoldemortI elliot 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Voldemort. -Mask 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant merge She's definitely worthy of a mention, and I reckon she's almost certainly going to be notable in her own right one day, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andjam 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete vanity spam, already userfied. Guy 12:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futura Technologies

Contested prod that is spam. A copy of this page is available at User:Futura Technologies, related MFD debate is here. MER-C 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as unverifiable nonsense. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie West

Was tagged as speedy, but this article is far from nonsense (the previous reason it was deleted. Probably unverifiable still, but not speedy worthy. Procedural nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's subtle nonsense. A google result of any kind would've easily supported any of the notions but it's all a big prank. –– Lid(Talk) 09:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - can't find anything on Google for the woman or the book. BTLizard 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with great haste! Vanity entry most likely. Dismas|(talk) 10:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, and it was too generous. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Houston

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 09:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronil

This isn't a baby name encyclopedia. Duran 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokejungle.net

No evidence of passing any of the points of WP:WEB; despite being a reasonably well-constructed new article, there's a lot of unverifiable information here (no third-party sources to confirm). Deprodded with comments on article's talk page and listing for AfD per that discussion. ~Matticus TC 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me tonight to cite some sources, as I'm in Japan and rather busy. There are verifiable sources, and I'll be editing the page with them shortly. Thanks! BlackxxJapan 09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Note that I have no prejudice against the site as such; but claims to notability like ~3000 visitors a day or references on international blogs and image boards are simply inadequate in the absence of awards or published references. My own homepage gets more visitors than that and has also been referred to on a number of international blogs and forums, but if anyone created an article on it, I would nominate it for deletion myself. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haeleth mentioned non-cited sources, but sourcings to the foriegn sites and a stat tracking page for pokejungle.net have been provided to give published accounts to the claims. More coming soon, like I said, I'm pretty busy at the moment so please be patient. This article is simply "Under Construction" and not finished yet. I think there might be a page header I'm supposed to put up, but I honestly don't know. BlackxxJapan 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, primary sources (as in the subject of the article) cannot be used to verify information (they're not neutral, and WP:NPOV is one of the central policies of Wikipedia.) Blogs and forums cannot be used to verify information either, they're not reliable. "Under construction" is not an excuse because we're supposed to place things on Wikipedia only after they're established, not before. That being said, the site design looks clean and I hope you keep up the good work, but Wikipedia is not a web directory. ColourBurst 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My site is established...the article is still in the rough though. And forums/blogs ARE reliable if you're claiming to have been sourced on international sites, such as forums or blogs. Do you want a newspaper sourced when you're talking about blogs? That is ridiculous. "International blog" I source a blog, which thouroughly verifies the claim that it was sourced in an "international blog". And the hits were definitely sourced by a third party script that's built soley to accurately track stats. And I realize this isn't a website directory, but it is a user-based article compilation on all subjects and matters. I think that if an article is well written, it documents what it needs to, AND I can finish sourcing everything, it should be fine. The Wikipedia's gotten a bit too strict on 'what qualifies' as far as articles go. If there's information to document, and (a) good writer(s), then what's the problem? Is this article degrading to the Wikipedia? BlackxxJapan 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read WP:RS. "Reliable" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Blogs and web forums are not reliable under the criteria. Wikipedia hasn't "gotten" too strict, the policy's been in since day 1 (since WP:RS derives from WP:V, which is a derivative of WP:NPOV, which is the very foundation of this site and non-negotiable.) ColourBurst 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JustRHYMES

Website the fails WP:WEB with no alexa ranking at all. 22 google results total and the article was created by User:justrhymes so possibly qualified as WP:Vanity –– Lid(Talk) 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as lacking even the tiniest shred of evidence of meeting any realistic inclusion guideline. Guy 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReplaceFacebook

Self-referential, trying to promote new project created in the last 1-2 days. Not notable yet. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K&Q

Just a pub. Author claims the pub is unique because it has a laundrette in the basement and has bar billiards. Apparently this is not common in pubs nowadays, although I wonder where else I would find a bar to play this on. Utterly non-notable. Just like any of the other thousands of pubs in the UK. Delete.- Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Bar billiards is not played on a bar[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software for engineers

If this list were anywhere near complete, it would be staggeringly huge. More detailed categories already exist, and are self-maintaining. Trevyn 10:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Art Club

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [33] — NMChico24 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, perceived importance by person who removed the prod is not reflected in any articles or references. Currently just a university club without much outside influence Fram 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please refer to http://www.upenn.edu/pip/?pip=artclub, in relation to the significance of the club for Penn and for broader society. This reference, which was one the front page of Penn's website for over three months, reflects the importance of the club and the movement it has the potential to start among college campuses throughout the country. The club demonstrates that college students need not take art classes to be artists in college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Reply: this is the article in whch the club presents itself. That it was linked from the homepage of the University isn't strange at all and does not indicate anything but that the club exists (which no one doubted). We have no outside articles about the club, and the potential it has is a case of WP:NOT a crystal ball. When some national publication comments that the current revival of art by non-artists started in Penn Art Club, you can restart the article. Until then, it is not important enough to include in this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
      • The story about the Penn Art Club was not simply a link to the site, it was a featured story. While the story about Penn Art Club was featured, other--equally as significant--stories ran: such as discoveries in blot clott physiology, uncovering of ancient tombs in Egypt, new initiatives of the University, abd breakthrough research on the relation of the brain to the eye. "Doesn't indicate anything but that the club exists"--every club is linked to on the clubs page, but no other had a story on the front page. Penn Art Club embodies a novel movement, an intellectual progression towards academic freedom in the sense that, indeed, universities not only produce knowledge and truth, but also contribute to the health of democracy. As Paul Lazarsfeld would note, this article is an example of a solution to a fundamental "ill-structured" problem in colleges across the country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, copyright violation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbeam school

Tagged for speedy as non-notable school (as if such a thing could possibly exist!) actually this is part copyvio, part advert. It either needs rapid and aggressive cleanup, or it needs deletion. Guy 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Pail Kids (animated series)

A series which never aired, was bootlegged a bit, but there really is no credible evidence of any real audience, and most of it is almost certainly OR for the same reason. Guy 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_7&oldid=74316684"