Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

Guide to deletion

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.--Hús ö nd 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berlin

Does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:PROF. The "Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills" is Berlin's private practice. Despite what one may infer from the article, his academic involvement is not impressive: 8 total papers (only 1 in the past 10 years) and only two on glaucoma (none in the past 10 years).[1] Not convinced that work on "Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy" is that notable enough per guidelines at WP:PROF. AED 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, numerous cleanup tags on the article that do not appear to be solved anytime soon. Doesn't look like the organizations are particularly notable, though one has an article, but he doesn't appear notable enough within that. Dooms Day349 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete In light of the paltry number of citations in scholarly press, this guy appears to be a non-notable ophthamologist. If additional references can be provided to establish ntoability, I will of course change my vote. --Jayron 32 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Sr13 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN WP:PROF SkierRMH 08:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the professor does not have enough notability (according to WP:PROF) to justify him an article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete May be notable, but doesn't cite sources. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shella * 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office 2.0

Appears to be a neologism. If you notice that the article has one source, that's because there's one person behind the entire idea, organising conferences and all. Also see: WP:NOT crystal ball. --user:Qviri 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although, maybe it should be deleted. There are only 850000 non Wikipedia/COI ghits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 680 hits based on this link: [2]. This is the last page of the search showing the true amount of hits, with pages about OpenOffice.org and referencing Mr. Ghalimi personally filtered out. Or is my google-fu abandoning me here? Nevertheless, I'm not sure Google is a good way to decide this debate one way or the other. --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's good, except you filtered out the standard buisness nonsense, which includes the phase "Open office". You also filtered out all hits mentioning Ghalimi as the coiner. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. See http://www.office20con.com/profile.html?speaker=Ismael_Ghalimi. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part on the page linked tells us that this isn't a neologism coined and promoted by Mr. Ghalimi? --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was just coming back to add to it. The first link I posted confirms his association with the Office 2.0 conference. The Sponsor list confirms that this is a serious conference. A Google search for "Office 2.0" "Conference" generates 335,000 hits. A Google News search for "Office 2.0" finds several notable media reports from Wired News, PC Magazine, InfoWorld, ZDNet (quoting Microsoft's Ray Ozzie), and Forbes. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concept seems to be well established, and I'm not sure where else the information would go, but it certainly belongs here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: quite an established IT concept talked about in the IT media all over the place seemingly these days. Ben W Bell talk 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much needed work, weakly notable. Sr13 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could use a rewrite however, as stated by Ben above, strong IT influences can be regarded as some basis for notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cites a website for its source and has tons of google hits. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per avove †he Bread 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is notable and verifiable too no reason for erasure Yuckfoo 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think there should be an article on a "Web office" (ie. this basic concept), but "Office 2.0" is really just a neologism made up to annoy everyone who got so annoyed with "Web 2.0". Only when the concept of a "Web office" is commonly-known as "Office 2.0" (as the concept of a dynamic web is now commonly known as "Web 2.0") should this article be named as such. Also "Office 2.0" would refer to version 2.0 of Microsoft Office, so there is some conflict. —EatMyShortz 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and despise Marketcruft buzzhype rather than considered technological phenomeon that will be still around in three years time, however it is notable, widely accepted and established trash and passes the required tests. The article should be re-written to illustrate that this is a marketing principle, not an established technological phenomenon.•Elomis• 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okies, just put some yards in cleaning the page up to what it really is, I'd like other people to have a look at it however because as a person who would love nothing better than to load marketing spinsters into a cannon and fire them into a wall, the article may have POV problems. •Elomis• 21:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kimchi.sg 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Marcinkowski

James Marcinkowski was an unsuccessful candidate for Michigan's 8th congressional district. As per WP:C&E, it is preferable for articles created for congressional campaigns to be removed and included under an article about the campaign, which has been created at Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006. Contents of the Marcinkowski article have been copied to the destination article for future revising. The debate is whether Marcinkowski represents a notable person in his own right, outside of the congressional race, as per WP:BLP guidelines. It should be noted that ~~Marcinkowski did not have an article until his run for Congress, and that~~ the majority of the article's content comes from his Congressional campaign. Jeff 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the statement that "Marcinkowski did not have an article until his run for Congress" is false, as I noted below. His article was created in the wake of his testimony to the Senate in July 2005.- csloat 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good call. Ok, modify it to "having a stub until he ran for congress at which point his campaign filled in the article" -- Fair disclosure: I voted for Marcinkowski in the general election. --Jeff 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marcinkowski had a bio page up before he announced his run for Congress. As you can see here, it was active in 2005 (though barely a stub). Unfortunately someone moved the page without consensus to Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006 instead of AfDing it first, so the link I gave has the wrong page title. In any case, Marcinkowski was known for his work with the CIA and for his outspoken response to the Plame affair. He testified about it to the Senate well before his unsuccessful congressional run. Prior to that, he was known for prosecuting suicide Dr. Kevorkian when he was a prosecutor in Michigan. He may not be the most well-known person to ever run for Congress, but he is not an unknown, and his congressional run was not the only reason he was considered notable enough for a BLP. His testimony to the Senate committee is here; David Corn called it "perhaps the most powerful rebuttal of and rebuke" of the testimony that day; the testimony is quoted in numerous places, including Todd Gitlin's book The Intellectuals and the Flag excerpted in The American Prospect.--csloat 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Marcinkowski is not mentioned by name in the Plame Affair article or the Jack Kevorkian article. I think though your "keep" argument is certainly the synopsis of the other side of this debate! Looking forward to more outside opinion. --Jeff 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: That can easily be fixed by editing the Plame Affair article or the Jack Kevorkian article :)-csloat 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're merging the content into another article, why not just turn it into a redirect? That doesn't require afd, makes the information easier to find, and preserves the page history needed for GFDL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what was done, but csloat objected and wanted an AfD... So I went ahead and started the AfD request. Guess it probably could've just been a merge discussion back at the article, but I'm not really the best bureaucrat. --Jeff 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prob with redirecting is that it turned a biography into a page about a historical event.--csloat 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is only included because of one event, and the only thing worth writing about them is in relation to that one event, it's logical to redirect their name to that one event. The question of whether this guy has notability other than the election is a content dispute, and not an issue that needs to be brought to AFD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether this guy has notability other than the election is a content dispute, and not an issue that needs to be brought to AFD. Odd, I thought that the point of AfDs was to determine notability, and that "content dispute" occurs when editors agree on notability but disagree on wording. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I agree that simply moving the article was a bad idea. An article about an election needs a fundamentally different structure from a biography and we'd be better off with a decent article written from scratch to cover the election (or just a paragraph in the page on the district). This is really a mess. User:John Broughton's move has made things way screwy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the article on the campaign - Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006 specifically says the information below [which is about Marcinkowski] will be edited down and will become part of a full article about this race. My intent is to turn that draft into a decent article - in fact, I'm setting up a wikiproject to recruit editors for this and a number of other races. While I'd love to be able to instantly create a complete article for the Michigan 8th race, I'm putting most of my efforts into the wikiproject, which hopefully will result in almost 100 good articles about House races in 2006.

I hope you won't use the same methods to create the rest of the articles; these moves just lead to a mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did 15 or so of these moves, trying to be judicious - almost all the articles were short and the candidates clearly non-notable. This one was probably the longest and the most "on the cusp"; with hindsight, I probably wouldn't have done what I did, despite WP:BB. I do note that no one has objected to any of the other moves, as far as I know. John Broughton | Talk 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my move didn't make things "way screwy" - what made things "screwy" was the copy/paste done by Commodore Sloat; he could have just done a move to put the article back where it was. Or he could have asked me about my move, and I could have told him him how to reverse it. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this the worse it gets. The election article needs to be moved back to the guy's name to restore the history. This should be deleted for housekeeping as a copy-paste move, but with care to merge any new content with the moved over copy. I pity the admin who has to sort this out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post a note on the discussion page of James Marcinkowski saying that the page history and prior versions of the article are available at Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006, for those who want to look at those. And someone looking at the page history can also figure that out, since the oldest entry is a move. As for getting an admin involved - perhaps the AfD should be finished, first, since there is a disagreement here about whether Marcinkowski deserves an article or not? John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per csloat above -- Sholom 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that coverage of congressional challengers here is already EXPECTED by the world outside Wikipedia. Un focused 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD template was removed from the article a few hours after the AfD started and never replaced, I am adding it and relisting, just to err on the side of caution. --W.marsh 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep though not notable merely as a political candidate, his involvement in both the Kevorkian and Plame issues seems to establish notability through other means easily. --Jayron 32 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep csloat covered my views well. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Couch

Non-notable author dockingman^talk 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as for his military service, he's a great guy and all but he isn't notable; only a Captain and no important medals, dunno if he even has a Purple Heart, let alone something big like a Naval Cross (or whatever the big Navy thing is). As for the books, none of them appear to be bestsellers, critically acclaimed, or anything. Totally non-notable person. Dooms Day349 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Also see the second paragraph of his biography (external link). SWAdair 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs editing, not deletion. Couch appears to be notable enough to me even if he wasn't an author. And is is Rear Admirals and higher for the Navy? --Hjal 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claim of "multiple independent reviews or awards" made in earlier keep comment, but what source is this from? Seraphimblade 14:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--SUIT 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He wrote several nonfiction books and novels which were not included in the original article. I added some reviews. Clearly notable as author of numerous books published by major publishers and reviewed favorably.Edison 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable author. Amazon lists him and he's gotten good ratings.--aviper2k7 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SWAdair. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dosen't seem that non-notable. Atlantis Hawk 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He wrote several excelent books, which sold well.
Keep seems to be notable †he Bread 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gum

Non-notable bio, possible WP:COI. Article was proposed for speedy and prod, but those tags were deleted by author. Shunpiker 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about non-notable person, autobiographical; all in all a soapbox -- dockingman^talk 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition, the author has a verbatim copy of the article as his userpage. -- dockingman^talk 02:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Resolute 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- the db-bio was correct. No assertion of notability. Brushes with notable people does not make one notable. SWAdair 08:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomSkierRMH 08:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir धर्म 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikIran

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Heja Helweda 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it can be verified, it needs two outside coverages per WP:WEB. MER-C 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wiki website that exists. Notable in Iran. For MER-C's comment: Would LyricWiki fail as well? Sr13 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikIran pales into insignificance when compared with LyricWiki. Merely existing isn't an assertion of notability and therefore cannot be used to argue for the keeping of this article. MER-C 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with MER-C here. WP:WEB is pretty clear. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable website in Iran, mentioned in the electronic and printed media. --ManiF 12:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provides no links to third-party coverage. Sandstein 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB, with the emphasis on multiple and non-trivial (no indication that the Iranian.com reference was substantial). Demiurge 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Using this query, I found a reference on the front page of Iranian.com, full text is: "our wiki/Build encyclopedia on Iran & Iranians/wikiran.org". From the "our" it looks like this fails the "independent" part of the WP:WEB criteria as well. Demiurge 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important resource and referenced by Iranian.com. Lists over 500 articles and says it is "inspired by Wikipedia". WP:WEB is not a policy but guideline so we cannot say it is binding. Why delete now and then create again when you agree it is notable?? If this was on Wikia would you still delete? Keep and improve and let us be patient for "slashdot effect" :) Khorshid 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just so that people here know: WikIran's website will soon be transferred to a server provided by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as it continues to grow and expand. And unlike Heja's claim, it is a non-profit encyclopedia and it is referenced and mirrored by several other websites.--Zereshk 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its notability section has me convinced. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources is not independent (as I pointed out above), the other is simply a website directory which trivially includes the site[3]. (The article's claim that the "our" means "belonging to the Iranian community" seems more than a little dubious to me, considering it wasn't added until after I made my point above.) Demiurge 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's little more than an ad pamphlet. MB
Keep, as important. Siba 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, recreate when/if it does. - Francis Tyers · 15:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bogdan 15:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also please not that there are some copyvios on their "encyclopedia", as some articles are copy-pasted from Wikipedia without attribution: for example http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/Ziyarid from Ziyarid. bogdan 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged copyvios on that site are no reason to delete a Wikipedia entry. It is not just a Wikipedia mirror, it is a Wikipedia spin-off that has developed in its own way.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you put the word encyclopedia in quotes, as if to suggest that it's not a real encyclopedia? So, from your perspective, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this one isn't, right? :) That's nice. Now, the history of the article you mention was started by Zereshk, and if he's involved with wikIran, the copyvio issue is a bit moot. But there's another thing, which makes that point even more moot. It's released under the GFDL as well, just like Wikipedia, so someone can easily go there and put the attribution there if it's missing. Right? I mean, that is the entire purpose of the GFDL, is it not? Floodlands 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, also please note that linking WikIran (being a small wiki) "should be avoid", according to our policy. I see that to some extent the spamming of Iran-related pages has already been began. :-) bogdan 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that? I've been looking through the policy pages, and can't find anything that says Wikipedians aren't allowed to link to small websites or wikis. That's nonsense. As an admin, you're really shouldn't make things up. If an editor incorporates text from wikIran or another public GFDL corpus provider, they can also add an attribution link. By virtue of that fact alone, your claim is incorrect. By the way, why the antagonism? You want to delete this article, that's fine. But please do not make false accusations of "spamming" against other users. Assume good faith, and leave your sarcasm at the door. Thanks. Floodlands 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Wikipedia:External links: "Links normally to be avoided": Links to wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial numbers of editors.. bogdan 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. That's a guideline, not a policy. As an admin, shouldn't you have a clear understanding of the difference? ;) Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiran appears to be a one man show, as the only person who edited it in the last week is a certain User:Aeon, so it fails to meet the criteria. bogdan 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually judging from the history of articles User:Fesenjoon looks to be the more active user. But this is a moot point. The importance of any website is the quality of its content, not the quantity of users involved. What's interesting is that this wouldn't even be an issue if this site experiences what another editor here calls the "Slashdot effect" and achieved significant notability. I'm sure you would still use that "one-man-show" bit as an excuse for deletion, but you would never be able to dispute the notability criteria. What is nice to see are the other editors here who are positive in their outlook, desiring to delete now, but recreate later when notability is attained. And it is also of note to mention that these editors refrain from making accusations and the use of a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia needs far more positive, level-headed editors like that. Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zereshk. Khoi khoi 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are a lot less notable subjects on Wikipedia related to fictional places and people, why not have a short entry on a new on-line encyclopaedia?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Can be recreated when it does. — mark ✎ 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per similar AfDs at GetWiki and Wikinfo or merge with Iranian media (or some such article). Possibly a bad faith nomination. metaspheres 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a bad faith assumption!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Not based on the edit history. metaspheres 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Demiurge Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing isn't a claim to notability, "important" isn't a reason to keep, and 500 articles is almost nothing for a wiki. Waiting for the Slashdot effect to hit it, or even wanting Wikipedia to help produce that effect, is no reason to keep it and if anything a reason to delete. This website does not meet WP:WEB. --Rory096 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zereshk. Looks good to me. DragonRouge 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough. Bertilvidet 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some so called admins are already taking it upon themselves and deleting all links to WikIran articles on WP. Note User:Bogdangiusca's edits for example. His deletions are not "policy" as he claims, but guidelines, and he knows it. Yet he persists. Sad part is that if you take a closer look, most WikIran articles are more complete in content than their WP counterpart. I see such moves as purely intentional and obstructive.--Zereshk 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Spam is also a guideline. That doesn't prevent people from removing "Enl4rge Y0ur Pen1s" ads. :-) bogdan 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That comparison is totally out of line. There is no way you can pass off adding links to wikIran as "spamming" especially considering both the nature of the site and the fact that Zereshk has been by far the most active editor in the sphere of Iranian articles here on Wikipedia. Respect and manners go a long way in this world. Before his arrival, the vast majority of Iran articles were mere stubs. Accusing a long-term editor of his class, expertise and sincerity - not to mention all the incredible amounts of time he has dedicated to Wikipedia - of spamming is in, to put it bluntly, incredibly bad taste and is a borderline personal attack. Floodlands 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with your objection to this comment, but given that you've only been on Wikipedia two days, it is amazing that you know so much about Zereshk's edit history.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that this user certainly has never edited alongside Zereshk; except for one edit to his userpage, this user has never edited outside this AfD! --Rory096 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... although the user's evident interest in this AfD has not prompted them to vote.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific objections or problems with me, there are other, more proper channels for that. Otherwise, please refrain from any further commenting on my responses, unless you are objecting to any points that I have raised. Thanks. Floodlands 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its another Encyclopedic work like Wikipedia and people should know about it. Plus there is also an Armeniapedia and probably more such Encyclopedic sites. I support such sites fully. --alidoostzadeh 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ali.Khosrow II 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a personal website, it is a free encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia. - Marmoulak 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep,per ALi.--Pejman47 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hectorian 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(removed comment by banned user Darkred). Khoi khoi 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any proof of this? Are you referring to those named here [4]? It could have an impact on the article's content, if the article is saved - I still maintain my keep vote, but think that such details should be included if they are true.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point: WikIran was started on 7 May (according to the history of its main page), which is coincidentally the same date as the remedies concluded for the Aucaman arbitration, which set out topical bans [5]. I think there is a fair point here [6]. Personally, I think WikIran is just the first of many, created because collaborate projects work better when the editors are unified behind a certain editorial line rather than the despair and futility that Wikipedia generates - and what's wrong with that?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you and the above anon are going to make accusations against specific editor(s), please name names. And provide a name for yourself as well, and your background in that case. And of course, please provide concrete evidence. Otherwise, please refrain from such speculations. Also, I have to ask the anon if s/he is also a banned user, and if so, please provide your banned username(s) for the record. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? Why should I give you my name, address and occupation simply because I have made an enquiry. And it is a bit rich for you to make demands as someone who has only created an account to participate in this AfD!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Please keep your outrage to a minimum and read my post carefully. And by the way, this is not a message board for general discussion. Thanks. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules for someone who has only just signed up. Some might say that you are a sockpuppet. But I could not possibly comment :o)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To use your own words in a comment further above, "that's a bad faith assumption!" Floodlands 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia - we're all hypocrites here! ;o)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that's supposed to imply, but to each their own, I guess. Floodlands 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It implies a joke.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm laughing. Floodlands 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Zereshk and Ali--Sa.vakilian 08:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable enough.Gol 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 69.140.173.15 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as other wiki encyclopedias like Armeniapedia and Wipipedia Roozian 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this and Dev Sibwarra to The Truce at Bakura -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Sibrawa

Minor Star Wars character. 1 ghit (not quite a googlewhack, if you remove the quotes you get three), thus unverifiable. Crufty and unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this falls squarely under the "that one guy who appeared once in the third episode of the second season" clause, from a policy/guideline I have forgotten the name of. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Truce at Bakura (or, merge into List of minor Star Wars characters) per WP:FICT. The reason you get only 1 ghit is because the name is misspelled. ColourBurst 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor Star Wars characters per ColourBurst. hateless 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Minor characters have their own list, and he's minor. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Falcorian. Sr13 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say merge, but it's a poor article. 2,480 Google hits when spelled correctly, but he only appears in one book. -LtNOWIS 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Would vote to delete, except that there already exists an article into which it can be merged. 38.100.34.2 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. hoax.. Aksi_great (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton, Oregon

Hoax article. After consultation with several editors we can find no sources proving this place exists. The one article that links to it may be in error. Katr67 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the article's talk page. Also note that the same editor created the article State Highway 128 (Oregon), which is also up for AfD. Katr67 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has resisted all efforts to prove it actually exists. StuffOfInterest 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any record of this even being a collection of trailors. If it's a hoax, what a strange one it is. --Oakshade 03:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax I am always surprised by articles about places that RamBot didn't catch. While there are MANY notable, but unincorporated places that RamBot didn't create, a quick google check does verify that this one is entirely made up. --Jayron 32 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax fails everything test SkierRMH 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. It's east of nowhere. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see my google search here.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is a hoax, my ghits turned up the same as Bakaman's, only Wikipedia article mentions of its existence.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is why I tag even articles about hiways and towns which are unsourced. Edison 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonexistant. Rever e ndG 04:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a place doesn't exist in the real world, then better to write about it in your next novel rather than on Wikimedia. Speedy Delete hence. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 attack pages. Kimchi.sg 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Wintergreen, Matthew Hüygens-Villeneuve

Tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user saying this article is a hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-18 02:58Z

Speedy delete - yes it is a hoax. Zero non-wiki ghits when combining "Garth Wintergreen" and "Garth and Matthew News on Two" (the radio show). The other guy gets 2 non-wiki ghits, none of which are relevant. So tagged. MER-C 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as attack articles. They are clearly meant to spoof two members of an internet forum. SWAdair 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spoof fails everything category SkierRMH 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadri-

Topic is subsumed by Wiktionary entry wikt:Quad- Myasuda 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect per Uncle G. ~~Isn't there a speedy category for dicdefs?~~ -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I think the concern is that the difference between dicdef and not is too thin and subjective. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. 1ne 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; dicdef. SkierRMH 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. feydey 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion is required. Like I did with most of the others, almost a year ago, redirect to numerical prefix, which is an encyclopaedia article on numerical prefixes that is cross-linked to the several dictionary articles on the individual numerical prefixes. Uncle G 13:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Uncle G. - Mike МиГ 14:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, also withdrawn although it's irrelevant now. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Sampler

Fails WP:ORG based on local scope & lack of third-party sources, and content is taken almost entirely from the various websites associated with the organization, only slightly reorganized. – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs editing, but there seem to ample hits at unrelated sites

--Hjal 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it needs to be rewritten per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The organization is held in high esteem at Kansas University [7] and the founder has been cited by (local) Congressman Jerry Moran as "an effective and tireless advocate for Kansas' rural communities" [8] and has served on a state task force about rural life[9]. In any case, there are sufficient independent sources to develop an article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 4 independent newspaper references. Edison 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question OK, it looks like I was wrong here. Is there a special process for withdrawing a delete proposal? Should I just remove the tag, or should I let the discussion play out for archival purposes. –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Wars

Contested prod. Non-notable computer game modification. Khatru2 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an apparently non-notable game mod.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable.--aviper2k7 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake and Kaik

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search for "Quake y Kaik" finds only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom...
Speedy delete per nom and (fill in the name of your favorite WP policy here, it probably applies) Thoroughly debunked on the Spanish WP. BTW, in Spanish quake rhymes with cake and flake, but not kaik, and one of the "actors" (Miguel Sánchez) was a 17th century Mexican priest. Cráter humeante, pronto. Tubezone 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aarón González

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search for "Quake y Kaik" finds only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Delete like you've never deleted before. SkierRMH 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
¡Guacala! per above. Tubezone 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove WP:BLP warning from talk page, it doesn't apply, then DELETE article per nom. 170.215.83.83 01:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geremy Olkous

This appears to be hoax. Virtually all of the ghits for this person (in English or otherwise) appear to be WP mirrors and the Roseau Warriors are a high school team in Minnesota... author looks to be the same as the author of Quake and Kaik and Aarón González, both up for AfD as hoaxes. Tubezone 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meh! Hoaxy, hoaxy, hoaxy! But seriously, yes, it's a hoax so...you know what to do. Dooms Day349 05:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax? Yes. Delete. Yes. SkierRMH 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Eight non-wiki ghits. Zero verifiability. 100% hoax. MER-C 08:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At the end of the day, notability and verifiability count the most; while the existance of the show can be verified from [10], discard the (unsourced) season summaries and you get a show that is not notable enough for its own article. Kimchi.sg 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gettin' Later

Vanity article about a college TV show. Unverifiable. Recury 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I've googled and found clear sources. Will add to article now. Gekedo 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC) And Comment - This is far from unverifiable...there is an official website as well as numerous references to the show, upon a Google search. However, I do think there is rather too much information here. Could do with a trim. Gekedo 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication why this TV show is supposed to be notable. One source is actually a mirror of the Wikipedia article, two are associated with the show, one is a college newspaper article that briefly mentions it. Not really overwhelming. Sandstein 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This show, it's guest list, and some of it's subject matter dig surprisingly deep into college and professional sports as well as entertainment, particularly in the Pittsburgh region. I do agree that some details are a bit overkill, but as a whole, this show provides a meaningful look into the regional sportscape as well as the opinions and perceptions of those who are/were a aprt of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.153.103 (talk • contribs) .

Strong keep This show was the flagship of a once dead University television station, and pretty much single-handedly brought it back to life. It laid the groundwork for a station that is still functioning to this day. Also, the show had on many regional guests and even a few national guests, rare for a local talk show. It allowed viewers to see local personalities in a way they normally didn't see. There are many sources online related to the show. It was available every week online long before networks began carrying shows online. It is an important piece of local programming history and reruns can still be viewed online to this day. Definitely deserves to keep the entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.6.70 (talk • contribs)

Delete. I've got socks more notable than this. WMMartin 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior precedents on AfD, college or university broadcast stations which ONLY broadcast to their particular university do NOT deserve separate articles (though they can and should be mentioned on the article about the university itself). An article about a TV show on a college station that is only seen by students of said college is doubleplus not notable. The lack of verifiable third party sources confirms this. If multiple references in reputable press (unconnected to the show or college) about this show can be provided, I would change my vote. --Jayron 32 05:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is informative, and well written. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHR Global (second)

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia

non notable websites. as WP:WEB. Duyouknows 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comixpedia.com, get rid of Comixpedia.org. Comixpedia.com is notable, but .org isn't. 1ne 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on Comixpedia.com. I'll get rid of the Comixpedia.org half of the article, since I would have !voted speedy delete if it were in a separate article. MER-C 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question what does "has featured cover art by" mean? Did these artists (who I presume are notable because some of them have articles) create content specifically for Comixpedia or did Comixpedia just republish it? Demiurge 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The former. Nifboy 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-borderline if not blatant spam, article links only to own site. Little to no assertion of notability aside from "notability by association". Seraphimblade 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikilinking using "comixpedia:" goes to comixpedia.org. Danny Lilithborne 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline speedy. Fails WP:WEB, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, even if only to be re-written as a stub article explaining the difference (in content or authorship) between comixpedia.com and comixpedia.org. 38.100.34.2 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing verified by third party reputable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Mets501 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Heavyskies

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. as non notable fan films or fancraft. Google 490hit. Imdb no films page. Duyouknows 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - being mentioned in a podcast (which ChaosRadio seems to be) or discussed on a forum aren't assertions of notability. This falls in the unremarkable web content basket called CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete pure WP:CRUFT SkierRMH 08:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable fan film, violation of both WP:NOT and WP:CRUFT.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not Youtube. Fan made videos are not really important here. K yo cat^(T)•(C) 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 (web content). Kimchi.sg 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vangelis (Buffyverse)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. as non notable fan films or fancraft. see Imdb no films page. Duyouknows 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - being mentioned in a random podcast or discussed on a blog aren't assertions of notability. This falls in the unremarkable web content basket called CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy delete Pure fancruft WP:CRUFT SkierRMH 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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