Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 1 August 3 >

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. Sango123 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit Wrestling

Good article, but WP:V and WP:NN seem to be fighting in here. This was listed as a red link on the 2 August noms by someone else. It was incomplete. TrackerTV is completing the nomination for 3 August. TrackerTV 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Naruto

This article has already been nominated once and quickly deleted with no keep votes. Reasoning remains the same and can be found at the original discussion page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Armstrong

Hoax article: the only Armstrong to play for the All Blacks was in 1903 [1]. Ziggurat 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zog (disc jockey)

NN? -- Zondor 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Crockford

Either I'm missing something, or this guy didn't really appear in Harry Potter 3.[2] I don't think I'm missing anything. Mad Jack 01:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuerza Grafica

Orphaned AfD nomination. I think it is being nominated for lack of notability, although if the article is accurate it has that. However, it should be assessed against WP:CORP. Please ensure such assessment is done, rather than kneejerk "voting" in either direction. Technical nomination - no opinion from me, I'm seeking community and expert input. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Sango123 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Walker (author)

Joint nomination with White Vans and Candy. This was an incomplete AfD nomination. Appears to be a tiny walled garden: two articles that depend upon each other for existance. Notability not asserted but not matching a speedy criterion for the second of the two. Technical nomination: no opinion expressed by me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User is blocked indef. Naconkantari 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Paid Apparel

Spam, plain and simple. Tagged for speedy but we still don't seem to have a "blatant spam" CSD criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to X-Men (TV series). --Ezeu 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Til Death Do Us Part (Part 1)

An incomplete AfD nomination being sent here because I don't know what it is about or what else to do with it. It's not a speedy delete and perhaps something is salvageable for the knowledgeable. But if not, then perhaps it should go. Comments? No opinion from me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thew Article in question does not exist. did you mean X-Men (TV series), --Edgelord 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DinoHaven

The article was originally deleted because it was {{prod}}ed; therefore, I have been told WP:CSD will not hold up and that I should WP:AFD it. The subject does not presently seem terribly notable as far as companies go and it will most likely fail criteria based on WP:CORP. Also, Dinohaven (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article, calling into question whether this is a legimate article or something along the lines of self-promotion/WP:SPAM. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pets Reunited Online

Bio of a gaming clan with 18 Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Golf Club

Non-notable entity plus page is an orphan. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - there is no consensus to delete this. Richardcavell 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Rom

It's the claim to fame in the game that's to blame. Fails WP:V, WP:Music and notability. Teke 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The bulleted list is supposed to be a list of pseudonyms. I am fixing. This, however, re-enforces my keep because if the article is deleted the songlist is removed. --Phoenix9 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interdance Records is owned and distributed by SAIFAM Productions, who created the artist. They are not a major lable; nor a minor Indie lable. It is self distribution. Teke 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not in itself a good reason for deletion. Unless it becomes clear no sources can be found, this only means the article needs some work (someone needs to add sources) (I'll do it right now, adding the SAIFAM website as a source. One can search their DB for "jenny rom" and find all the song titles listed) --SevenMass 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Quite to the contrary, lack of sources and verifiablity are two of the most important reasons for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the core principles of Wikipedia. One of the points made in that policy which may apply here- "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --Wine Guy Talk 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy kept after massive rewrite - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking outside the box

This is a page that I just get a strong feeling of "this should be deleted" and "this is unencyclopedic", and I can't explain why. Please indulge the lack of a good rationale. Stifle (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Byrgenwulf and Smerdis of Tlön, again without prejudice against re-creation. A good article on this topic could certainly exist, detailing the origin of the phrase and its documentable history. However, said hypothetical article is so far removed from this one that "cleanup" translates to "complete overhaul". Anville 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guaranix

Was prodded by me with reason "Wikipedia is not for advertising or promoting as-yet unreleased software", has been de-prodded with no reasoning given. In addition to the reasoning I gave when prodding, I am also concerned about the verifiability of this article - no sources are given, and all I can find in Google is a project on a Brazillian Sourceforge-a-like here (machine translation into English) which is shown as being in the planning stage. (Also, there doesn't appear to eb any suggestion that it meets any of the ciretia in the proposed WP:SOFTWARE, although that is currently only a proposal.) Delete unverifiable pages about minor unreleased software projects. -- AJR | Talk 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted, still not notable. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Galaxy (computer game)

Video game spam, fails WP:WEB --Wafulz 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article. But firstly I am am a frequent Wikipedia reader but have never contributed personally, and hence some of the comments on this page are extremely difficult to understand because of the slang and abbreviation they use. I feel this is somewhat intimidating for anyone that is not within the Wikipedia community to contest a deletion and in particular this one. As I am not an enthusiast, my opinion on the subject of deletion is therefore perhaps not quite as learned as others versed on Wikipedia definitions, however I do not feel that it is any less valid. I am a Dark Galaxy player, and this first came to my attention when Wafulz posted on the Dark Galaxy forums in a rather menacing tone threatening to delete the article if anyone reposted. I took offence at the aggressiveness and the threat of deletion and so I post here to try to prove there is no scheme by anyone associated with Dark Galaxy to advertise using Wikipedia. As far as I can see, there seems to be two accusations here; Advertising and lack of notability. Wafulz kindly links to a thread which purports to be part of an advertising drive, as evidence of a purpose to advertise, however Wikipedia is not mentioned at all in the thread until Wafulz does so. The thread is a little under three months old, however there has been a Dark Galaxy article on Wikipedia for several years. In fact, the DG Wikipedia article was in existence long before the DGWiki game manual, which is referenced by Tychocat as a source of information that has been lifted directly to the Dark Galaxy Wikipedia entry. However in all probability the text in the DGwiki game manual was lifted FROM the Dark Galaxy Wikipedia article. The article was originally posted by a group of DG players from SomethingAwful.com, and was an independent action unknown by the rest of the DG community and creators. There is no motivation or purpose to advertise, however that doesn't change that the article still may be considered as advertising. I believe the article can be changed if it constitutes an advert, and this is the action I would support as opposed to deletion. As for notability, I think that this is something extremely difficult to prove or disprove in the case of a game thousands and thousands of people have come into contact with. The original article was not written by an official from Dark Galaxy, though it was written by a player(s). I understand the questioning of this as DG has no great notability perhaps; however it does have notability nonetheless. I think an editing to lessen the effects of accused advertising is the best course of action. --Tatsyrup 15:27, 2 August 2006
    • Then it was my mistake to assume that you had been behind the article. However, it doesn't matter who is behind it- it still merits deletion for failing to be notable and for basically being an advertisement. Also, please add comments at the bottom of the discussion, not the top. --Wafulz 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It was prodded and deleted just yesterday. --Peephole 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete

  • Comment: Per WP:PROD#Conflicts, recreation after prod constitutes a contested prod, NOT a G4 recreation violation. -- nae'blis 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWP:WEB is very narrow in its focus, and as such, it would be extremely difficult for a web-based game to get in however notable it was. -- Librarianofages 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are also in the middle of an advertising drive, and the vast majority of the links from search engines come from game directories, which the members added themselves in accordance with the thread I linked to. In the thread it also mentions the game is not finished. There are also really no mentions from notable sources anywhere online. --Wafulz 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Info
  • Delete again spam essay. --Xrblsnggt 06:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I look for the multiple non-trivial third-party articles with regards to judging WP:WEB and WP:CORP in context. As such, I don't see how one is more narrow than the other, nor that this game meets either. I'm finding a lot of directory listings, and that seems to be it. Also copyvio concerns, since at least the quotes in boldface type appear to be entirely lifted from here. Tychocat 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure that WP:WEB is only for web sites, not web-based games. This still needs to assert notability, though. Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Need I say more? ><Richard0612 UW 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is some consensus that no matter the motivation or author, there is some advertisement in the article. I however disagree with the notability. Over the years, the article has been edited heavily and I no longer recognise it from when I last viewed it some months ago even. These edits have created the advertisement. I proposed that the article be changed to satisfy all that there is no longer any advertisement, merely information. I suspect some still have notabilty issues, however is this not a fair compromise? --Tatsyrup 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Reply Unfortunately, no. It's not just that it's an advertisemen; it doesn't meet notability standards- why should it be on Wikipedia if it's not notable? Online browser-based games are a dime a dozen, and this one has no reliable third party sources to indicate merit. --Wafulz 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only the most notable browser games deserve articles. For example, Kings of Chaos deserves an article simply for its success and history, let alone its popularity. Ogame has an article justly, because at last count (over 6 months ago) it had over 2 million active players in Germany, IIRC. Dark Galaxy... while I've heard of it, I don't think its notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me. 11kowrom 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP The article needs to be written better BUT it should NOT be deleted at all. There are hundreds of computer games listed on Wikipedia, not to mention thousands of cartoons and other items that should be deleted if Dark Galaxy is deleted. It is a free ad-based game that is played by thousands of people around the world. The article needs to be better written but it should NOT BE DELETED. Charley 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The existence of articles that should be deleted does not merit the keeping of another article that should be deleted. Nominate them for AfD if you think they should be deleted (but look at WP:POINT first). --ColourBurst 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The game has been around for quite a long time, so has the article. I had it on my watch list but missed the prod. Much older versions of the article didn't read like an Ad. They could be restored. --Rikurzhen 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepif this is deleted, then articles similar to this content should be deleted as well. Moreover, this game has been in existence for some time now. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if we re-write it to be less like an advertisement, it would still not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Was this article deleted for the same reason last time as well? I don't see how a game/article (specifically the article) existing for a long time makes it notable. --Wafulz 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Comment - Pulling the "notible" card is an unwinnable argument for both sides. No matter how notable a topic, or in this case Dark Galaxy is, it is easy to simply dissmiss it with one subjective opionion that "that's not notible enough". This article needs to be rewritten, and wikified. It needs a NPOV, regarding the good and bad of Dark Galaxy, but does not deserve censorship. Delete this, then delete all under List of MMORPGs. Why not be amenable to rewrite? Charley 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the thread posted earlier, I got the impression that the game wasn't finished yet. It doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on a browser-based game that hasn't even been completed- this is borderline crystal-balling. I've also noticed that several of the articles in the list of MMORPGs are also up for deletion, so I don't know if you've considered that. This is not in any way censorship- if the game becomes more popular, wins an award, receives mention from a reputable third party source, or becomes more meritable then it might be eligible for an article. At this moment though? I still say no. --Wafulz 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its software not a website, hence its not about WP:WEB. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is deleted, please rename Dark galaxy (astronomy) to dark galaxy, as the DAB page will be superfluous. 132.205.45.148 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise to fulfil requirements To put a name to this, I am the author and I wrote this article to fill the void of the empty page associated with the 'Dark Galaxy computer game' heading which came up when I originally searched. I didnt realise that there had previously been issues with articles about Dark Galaxy, but the presence of a heading is somewhat misleading, both to those searching, finding no article under that heading, but also for me, as I would have avoided writing this if I had known of the issues surround the topic. If the topic is not worthy of an article, then why have a heading?? I dont mean to whinge, because if the article doesnt meet requirements then fair enough, but arrogant speculation about my intentions regarding advertising is unwelcome, as I am merely a player who enjoys the game, and also interested in contributing in many information repositories online, be it in a forum, a review, or in this case by submitting to wikipedia. The article is not meant to read like an advertisement, and I can assure you I have no ties with any member of the Dark Galaxy team in any way. I can't actually see where it reads like this. It's not like I have said 'this game is the best, come join up and play' or offered any incentive or tried to draw people in. I just tried to outline the game and how it works. I also don't see how it can be an advertisement when there is no commercial gain from a player signing up. It's free and there is no obligation to give anything in return for playing. What am I advertising? OK admittedly there is the possibility to join the premium membership, but that is completely optional and not necessary to access the FULL game. Also, the copyright issue, I was under the impression that an attributed reference, quoted and not attempted to be passed off as my original work was merely a quotation / extract, and not an infrigement. But it is not only the technical details which baffle me... I spent a significant amount of time authoring the article, and as commented, yes it was my first, but why should that be any line of reasoning for deleting my article? I was under the impression that input was an important part of wikipedia, and I didnt realise that fresh input from a new user would be so hostily met. It doesn't encourage new users to contribute, nor does it give me any inclination to try and submit again. As I said, I can accept it if the criteria are not fulfilled or I have overstepped the mark on a regulation. It is my first submission and I could not be expected to take in every last minute regulation plus I am only human, with an individual style. I followed the guidelines on first posts etc offered by Wiki and tried to follow the suggestions, but obviously I fell short. Due to references to regulations I have breached, I cannot offer a 'Do Not Delete' opinion, it is not my turf, nor my rules, but I do feel that rectification of the article to fulfil requirements would be a better course of action. On rereading I agree that the NPOV is an issue, as I have unknowingly written merely from a proDG POV, but that can eaily be changed. There are things about the game that I or any established player who understands the game could give contructive criticism for. The notability is a tough one since as mentioned, the game does tend to appear only in game directories, but surely there are reports which do exist, it is a big game (on reputation I mean) but nevertheless the fact that the game has run for I believe 5 years or more, from its humble beginnings to its latest incarnation with multiple servers running and has long had a well established user base of thousands of players actively involved. Apologies if I am barking completely up the wrong tree here, I am not well versed in the ways of Wiki but I am a little agrieved that a genuine and honest attempt to contribute has been met with such comments, and although I accept intrinsic faults in my style, I don't see a well founded basis for many of the rejections offered. Would someone who is a seasoned submitter mind revising the article to an acceptable state, or merely pointing out where it needs to be revised so I or someone can do it in the hope of achieving a satisfactory balance that everyone can get one with. --Beemat 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "headline" for the article didn't exist. That is how Wikipedia works- if it cannot find an article under a name you have searched, it allows you to create an article under the heading. However, this is is no way an invitation to create an article for every heading.
And regarding advertising:
Dark Galaxy is a free online, browser accessed, turn-based strategy game using 'Turn-Engine' game creation technology. Right off the bat, the first sentence emphasizes the game's website and the fact that it is free. Then in the conclusion:
This is a basic and although it may not seem so, it is a very brief outline of a highly intricate and feature packed game, and many of the advanced features, strategies and methods have not been mentioned. The best way to learn and eventually master the game is to play. It is a great deal of fun, and a sense of achievement is easy to attain of enough attention is given to the game. Success is relative to the amount of time and effort put in, with the most successful and dominant players logging in multiple times per day throughout the whole round and entering commands even in the early hours of the morning if required. This is not to say that anything less is insufficient. A player can have just as much fun logging in once a day or even less, although this would rule out entering the upper player ranks.
There is significant emphasis to the reader that he/she should play this game. It reads like one long essay describing the merits of the game, why you should play, and how to play it- more importantly, none of these are reasons meriting a Wikipedia article.
The reasoning behind the deletion proposale is not because some of us don't welcome new users or hate this article- it's because we don't find the game to be particularly notable or verifiable, and these are two important aspects of an article. This is all in addition to its article reads like an advertisement. --Wafulz 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to comment The heading was indeed already there. I merely searched 'Dark Galaxy' and the heading 'Dark Galaxy (a science fiction strategy game) turned up at the disambiguation page. I never specified 'sci fi startegy game' thus I came to the conclusion that it was already there. If it had have been just 'there is no article...you can search for it yada yada yada' I wouldn't have written anything simply because there would probably be a reason it didnt exist. As to the idea that it is 'not an invitiation to create and article for every heading' I had no intention of writing under every blank heading, and I dont understand this comment since the way a topic gets covered is by someone submitting an article about it. If everyone thought 'oh its blank, I'd better not write anything' then where would Wikipedia be? This however is neither here nor there... I dont mean to get into a rant. About the article (which after all is what we are here for!) What I do agree now is that fair enough, I can see how that might be construed as advertising, and I see I should have been more objective and less opinionated and of a proPOV, but I still think that it warrants a rewrite more than deletion. I'm not fighting a cause just for the fun of it, because at the end of the day if it's gonna go its gonna go. I assume, like me, alot of people use Wiki to find out about endless number of things, and although its a game, the information is (or after a rewrite would be) more useful and extensive than the short blurb I have ever found elsewhere. Just wondered, if I did find 3rd party reports on the game (notable sources obviously), would linking them here go any way to show notability? Because although it has not been found by a quick Googling, it doesnt mean a) there isnt any, or b) the game isnt notable enough. By nature and genre, it is not going to be all over the headlines, just reported in related places. Regards --Beemat 09:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then that means somebody forgot to remove it last time it was deleted. Also, yes, reputable third party sources that are unaffiliated with the game would be nice to have. However, the key being that they should be reputable sources- not stuff like game directories, blogs, forums, etc. --Wafulz 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Delete?) I can't really see what content in this article is worth saving. It's thing most unlike an encyclopedia article I've read today. --Stellmach 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite like crazy I don't buy the argument that is is advertising or spam; it looks like something written in good faith by a fan of the game that ought to be cleaned up, which I am more than willing to help with. syphonbyte (t|c) 00:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a 6-year veteran of playing Dark Galaxy I am appauled that this game deemed not notable enough. However I am even more apaulled by the un-encyclopedic nature of the article. I will edit it to the best of my ability, then we shall argue about notability. --The Raven 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game is played by millions worldwide, it certaintly is both notable and relevant to an encyclopedia.

--PhoenixPinion 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Eden Fellowship

Nonnotable church, text reads like advertising/proselytizing. NawlinWiki 02:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan wilton

non-notable comic book artist Richardjames444 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll go prepare information I think more suitable than that original article and return here tomorrow or explore aspects of how to start a new stub. Either way it will contain that information. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.64.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete There's a comic underground? Do they hide in fear of persecution from bully comics? --Xrblsnggt 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, but I'm more surprised Alexa toolbar is used to guage relevance for inclusion in what I thought was a truly great encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.64.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, we can't very well go with the all-too-common, totally unsupported, claims that a website (or blog or forum) is enormously popular. What we have is Alexa, and Google/Yahoo searches for how many other pages link to it. If you have a better way of gauging websites, we'd love to see it. Fan-1967 13:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alexa, Google or Yahoo shouldn't be considered a valid means to test notability of a subject mainly present in the print medium. Alexa is also often grossly out of date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.125.196 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Well, Wiki is getting so visited that possibly modern notability should be determined purely from searches/visits in Wiki itself alone, instead of relying on other websites (and so few and dominant). The beauty of Wiki is in it's open nature instead of being an echo of wholly commercial endeavours, and it would be bad for that to change. Get the gurus to set it up so you can use Wiki's logs! No other suggestion at this time. This suggestion refers to notability of subjects/websites only, not of actual article content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.170.143 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Wikipedia isn't that heavily used. Anybody can leave a post in a forum and get dozens of people to visit an article, and skew the numbers. Doesn't mean the subject is notable, or worthy of an article. Fan-1967 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Warriors!

Contested Prod. Unsourced and unlocated fan fiction using anime characters from all over. Google is unhelpful, as the phrase seems to be used by a bunch of websites and gaming clans. Even if we knew where this was, fanfic is not notable. Fan-1967 02:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC) User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete[reply]

  • Do not delete. Page still in development.
'Myalysk 03:28, 2 August 2006
  • If you delete, prepare to face the heat!.
Okaidou 03:35, 2 August 2006
  • If you are going to delete this article, you might as well delete Neglected Mario Characters as well, because that also not real (yet).
Sunfie-kun 03:41, 2 August 2006
  • I'm looking forward to Anime Warriors!, so don't ruin it for me, or anyone else for that matter.
Paparano 03:48, 2 August 2006
  • Me horny
Lips|Lips 03:52, 2 August 2006
  • Look! This is serious. Stop playing around! Either you're with us or against us. All in good respect, don't delete this article. Give it a chance to grow. Or else it's like killing off a newborn baby.
Sunfie-kun 03:59, 2 August 2006

Exodoun

Exodoun

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

The result was keep after the restructuring. It's a decent spinout of the main subject now and merging it to the parent article would make it too long. All comments left after the change seem to agree. - Bobet 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest live Dave Matthews Band songs

This doesn't really seem like a stand alone article and seems as if it was better if it was somehow added to the Dave Matthews Band article. Lost Knob 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.Si

Non-notable painter, as of now. Article was prodded, but, prod removed. Do not feel meets WP:BIO criteria of "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Garnett (politician)

While I'm sure he's an awesome guy, there aren't enough reliable sources to write about him with a neutral point of view. He also doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Captainktainer * Talk 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hail the Name of Ghana

This article consists solely of the lyrics to Ghana's national anthem, and hence fails WP:NOT. An identical article exists on Wikisource at [3]. Therefore, this article should be deleted. NatusRoma | Talk 04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bernoske

Non-notable person. 178 Ghits, many of which come from Wikipedia or mirrors, and some relate to a 1920s American football player. Claim to notability is founding an organization which also appears non-notable (19 Ghits when entered in quotes, and I personally have never heard of this group even though I live very near their headquarters) and playing semi-professional football in Belize (they don't have a professional league there). fuzzy510 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in Samurai Jack

Second nomination. Cruft. Essentially just a trivia page. Any actually useful information should be moved to the Samurai Jack article or the individual episode articles. Chris Griswold 04:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Universe

Cruft. What useful information remains after factoring out what is already in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again should be added to those articles Chris Griswold 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dupe content, original research. --InShaneee 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unneeded. tmopkisn tlka 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an extremely unuseful and misleading article, because it suggests that every Batman story that Miller has written is part of the same "canon", distinct from the main canon, which simply isn't true. DKR and DK2 take place in the same "possible" future, true; but "Year One" is official continuity. Besides which, two books do not make a "universe". Seb Patrick 11:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge anything left into those other two articles. Attic Owl 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Seb Patrick said above is categorically false. Miller intends all of his stories to be read together: "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU. DC winds up adopting just about all of it, anyway."[4] Spawn/Batman even mentions that it is a companion to DKR on the inside cover. The All-Star Batman and Robin page on Wikipedia mentions that he intends those books to be part of the same universe, which he himself calls The Dark Knight Universe. He also said that it is his own Batman: Year Two, his intended follow-up to Year One[5] . That said, all of his Batman work has an explicitly stated internal continuity regardless of which books are official DC and which aren't. Calling the article "unuseful" and "misleading," therefore, is both unuseful and misleading to this discussion. Furthermore, this article existed as Frank Miller's Batman for over a month without setting off any red flags. So why is the new title suddenly grounds for deletion? It is a resource for Batman fans and fans of Frank Miller to see which works he has written on the character and what chronological order they proceed in, from the beginning to the end of Batman's career. This information is valid, alluded to in previously existing Wikipedia articles, and unavailable on other pages. It serves as a reference page, much as the "List of _____ Episodes" pages do. It also fits into multiple categories on this website such as Batman storylines and Batman writers. It can also be said to be a subcategory of Miller's work, ala the View Askewniverse (which, by the way, gets its own page) in relation to Kevin Smith. Finally, the fact that this was earmarked for deletion because it supposedly contains "false" data is further proof that it contains previously unknown information to users such as those posting above. Apparently, few of them knew that there was a Dark Knight Universe or that Miller's Batman work is internally consistent. Furthermore, the article itself states and has always stated which of these stories are Official DC continuity and which are not, another reason some have earmarked this for deletion. Rather that have an itchy trigger finger (not to mention a belittlement of the author and his or her intent) perhaps we should look at this article and see that it indeed describes a specific, verifiable DC alternate storyline that is only alluded to on other pages, none of which describe its full scope. For all these reasons, the article should stay. SSantoro 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the reason it was flagged for deletion now and not before when it had another title is that, #1, the "See Also" section of the Batman article was re-organized, and #2, the newer name better reflects the article's contents. Oh, and it is largely OR. Either way, I agree with MIB that this should be merged into Frank Miller --Chris Griswold 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is original research and a tad crufty. However, it would be interesting to shrink and merge to Frank Miller (comics), but if and only if it can be sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have added the citations missing from the page in order to satisfy any and all concerns of it's unverifiability. It's all there in black and white. The DKU does exist, there are plenty of Miller quotes concerning it, and it can be found being discussed all over the internet. SSantoro 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This really feels like original synthesis. The Newsarama interview mentions ASB&R as a "Year Two", but that's the interviewer saying it and Miller doesn't achnowledge it. The Telegraph piece doesn't mention continuity at all. The only piece that ties them together is the Quick Miller Minute on Newsarama, and that doesn't mention Spawn/Batman or DKR/DK2 at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Man In Bl♟ck said, "The Newsarama interview mentions ASB&R as a "Year Two", but that's the interviewer saying it and Miller doesn't achnowledge it." To refute, it does say: "But DC's misleading publicity is hardly Miller's fault. In his recent interviews, Miller has been quite clear that the All-Star Batman and Robin stories are part of what he calls his 'Dark Knight universe.' Hence they are not part of the official canon of DC continuity, whatever that may be this week, but are prequels to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again (see "Comics in Context" #30, 31, 34), which are clearly set in an alternate version of the DC Universe." SSantoro 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any source but Newsarama tying Y1/HTB/ASB&R into a continuity, and absolutely nothing tying Spawn/Batman or DKR/DK2 in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • From IGN.com: "But DC's misleading publicity is hardly Miller's fault. In his recent interviews, Miller has been quite clear that the All-Star Batman and Robin stories are part of what he calls his "Dark Knight universe." Hence they are not part of the official canon of DC continuity, whatever that may be this week, but are prequels to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again (see "Comics in Context" #30, 31, 34), which are clearly set in an alternate version of the DC Universe."[6] SSantoro 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Newsarama: "Speaking of the whole setting in time, you’ve said that this is, at least, unofficially, 'Batman: Year Two' for you…" Miller: "That’s the way I’m thinking of it, the title is definitely Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. I love having my name on something called that. I always loved the “Boy Wonder” line, before he was turned into the Teen Wonder, and almost a “Grim Robin.” But I just love the idea of a young Robin. That’s why I created Carrie Kelly in Dark Knight - I just loved the contrast between this stocky, tough, dark adult, and a colorful little pixie running around."[7]SSantoro 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's just comparing some of his newer work to some of his older work. It's an exceptional jump to call that some sort of fictional continuity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, there is a difference between a follow-up work and a shared continuity. Does he actually say "shared universe," for example? --Chris Griswold 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are multiple explicit statements by Miller himself in those articles, validating there testimony. They are all clearly in the same "universe." It is literally impossible to construct a theory to account for all of the following statements to refute the existence of the DKU, which is a term, btw, that he himself coined.SSantoro 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1. Miller: "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU. DC winds up adopting just about all of it, anyway."[8]
            • 2. Newsarama: "Speaking of the whole setting in time, you’ve said that this is, at least, unofficially, 'Batman: Year Two' for you…" Miller: "That’s the way I’m thinking of it, the title is definitely Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder."[9]
            • 3. Miller: [in reference to HTB] "If Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder is 'Batman Year Two' this is 'Batman Year 1 and ½.' It’s quite a young Batman."[10]
            • 4. Newsarama: "Given that you’ve written the later chapters of Batman’s life with Dark Knight, and you’ve written Year One, and this is the unofficial “Year Two,” do you ever entertain fantasies of saying, 'F___ it, I’m going to write my Batman from his start to his end. DC, give me ten years, and let me go nuts'?" Miller: "That kind of fantasy flits through the mind every now and then, but essentially, I write stories when I really have a story I want to tell. I wouldn’t have taken this on if I hadn’t sat down, thought about what they were offering in terms of creative freedom, setting, and everything else. After looking at it all, I realized I had a story here. It does relate to my other stories, but I like the fact that yeah, I’ve done the other bookend, but to show Batman, and more to the point, Dick Grayson becoming a hero…when we first see him, he’s a frightened, traumatized little boy. This is the story I want to tell now."[11]
            • 5. "Spawn vs. Batman is a companion piece to DC Comic's The Dark Knight Returns." (Spawn/Batman inside cover). You would have to do a lot of logic leaps to pretend he's not talking about the same thing.
              • This is really tenative. He dodges a lot of those Newsarama questions, and referring to a book as a "companion piece" doesn't mean it's in the same continuity (e.g. V For Vendetta and Miracleman, which Moore has described as companion pieces on multiple occasions). This continuity seems to exist more in the mind of one Newsarama editor's opinion than Miller's mind, and constructing these sorts of fanon continuities from works that inspired later works smacks of original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • After all the posted quotes from Miller himself, the link to IGN stating the same information, and evidence from within the books themselves, you continue to insist that this article "smacks" of orginal research, i.e. fabricated information. The IGN site and Newsarama even reference "Comics in Context" as further evidence of the DKU. It's even well known by the fans, and you can see this if you frequent comics forums. Miller coined the phrase DKU, discusses it periodically (in multiple sources), and clearly considers his other Batman stories as a reference point whenever he writes a new one. According to another, no longer posted, Newsarama interview, Miller stated himself that he asked DC to let him classify his works officially under the DKU label, in which he would explore his own interpretation of the DC Universe. I know this is now unverifiable since the site has been taken down. Yet to support this, I reference again when Miller said, "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU."[12] This in and of itself proves the existence of the DKU, and that all of Miller's Batman stories are part of it. It can't be any clearer. SSantoro 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank Miller is not the publisher. DC is. DC decide which continuities tie into one-another, and which are canon. Notwithstanding the fact that Miller is the sort of person who will contradict himself in interviews over this sort of thing as the years go by (and the vagueness, as outlined by other commenters above, of some of the statements in interviews), it doesn't matter what he "intends" - it's to do with what he's commissioned to write, and what DC decide to do with it. Of all the stories mentioned in the article, Year One is the only one that takes place in official DC continuity, and DKR and DK2 are the only ones that are recognised as being in the same one as each other (if Miller has decided to go and tell his own "Year Two" with ASB&R, then he's going against everything DC publicised the All Star line as, as that line is categorically supposed to contain completely continuity-free stories, a tenet he's clearly completely reneged on). I still maintain that the article is misleading by suggesting that Year One and DKR are part of the same continuity - they are NOT. Year One is part of a continuity in which, for example, Tim Drake is the third Robin. DKR does not acknowledge Drake's existence, having Jason Todd as the second and Carrie Kelly as the third. No matter what Miller's intentions as a writer, the final say goes to the people commissioning and publishing the books - i.e. DC Comics. You mention yourself that the article used to exist perfectly fine under a different name - and frankly, I can't understand the reason for the change. "Frank Miller's Batman work" is a perfectly acceptable title and a perfectly acceptable article. "The Dark Knight Universe", however, is an inherently problematic one, because it leads to this very debate we're having here - which means it clearly isn't encyclopedic. I maintain that it's misleading, because it's based on one person's opinion of what is canonical, and also because with the recent announcement of the title of the next Batman film, it suggests a connection to that universe. Seb Patrick 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your implication that the artist has no say over his own work and that only what DC decides matters is ludicrous. If I write a movie and publish it with MGM and then write a sequel and publish it with Fox, that does not mean that the movies are unrelated. Kevin Smith's Askewniverse is published by Miramax, Universal, and their subsidiaries. Since Miramax didn't publish Mallrats, does that mean that it has nothing to do with Clerks, despite what Miramax says? Miller's statements aren't inconsistent. He says and has always said that his Batman stories are connected. Spawn/Batman (published by IMAGE and not DC) says it's a companion piece to DKR, but according to your logic, that is impossible since DC wasn't fully in charge. Miller can certainly, without the permission of even care of DC, publish his own stories. That's why most of them are officially outside DC Continuity to begin with: Miller publishes what he wants, regardless of "official" DC Continuity. Year One contained some dramatic revisions to the DC Universe itself, and DC accepted it as tthe new origin for "Modern Age" Batman. Nevertheless, Miller is writing ASB&R to follow up Year One in his own way. The All-Star label is not undermined by this. They hired Miller and Grant Morrison to write ANY stories they wanted outside DC Continuity (i.e. giving the author's frreedom to choose). Miller chose the DKU and Morrison chose the Silver Age. Honestly, given the citations, direct quotes, and the multiple other internal Wikipedia references, it seems more like some people are in the mood to delete something, regardless of whether it requires deletion. My defense hasn't been weak or "original." I don't think it will hurt Wikipedia to leave it up, unlike a band vanity page or the like. SSantoro 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article but Merge the citable quotes into the main Frank Miller article. His opinion about his books is interesting in the context of himself as a creator, but there is no canonical basis for a "Dark Knight Universe" beyond his own opinion. The character is owned by DC Comics, not Frank Miller. As a wikipedia article this is clearly original research. -Markeer 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article and Merge the relevant cited information to Frank Miller per Markeer. I also applaud SSantaro's research here, but there's not quite enough there to say this deserves its own topic. --SevereTireDamage 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate it. I'm not hellbent on keeping the article up, but I do believe that Miller's artistic intentions, as indicated in his quotes, deserve some sort of mention in some of the related articles. Though as per putting the name of an unofficial parallel storyline into an encyclopedia, that point is well taken. The thing that initially set me off was the implication that the article was based on fabricated "fanon," which is untrue. The author, not the fans, created, named, and continues to discuss the universe. Nevertheless, DC has (regrettably from my perspective) failed to give him his his own "universe" in an official, this has DC's stamp on it sort of way. Though again I wonder about Kevin Smith's View Askewniverse. The films are put out by different companies, yet maintain an inner continuity AND a Wikipedia article. "Yes," one might say, "but they are all products of View Askew Productions." Ahah! But so is Jersey Girl which, FYI, Kevin Smith and Wikipedia both mention as being OUTSIDE the View Askewniverse. That said, we really are dealing in a gray area here. SSantoro 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Miller's view of the DKU isn't encyclopedic, but could be Merged into his article. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. Miller has said that all of his Batman stories follow the same continuity, and his interpretation of Batman is different enough from the mainstream writers of the DCU to warrant a seperate article. --CmdrClow 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe keep the spawn stuff, merge out some of it into frank millers page but otherwise we'll have Alan Moore's DCU, Grant Morrisson's DCU, Geoff Jones DCU etc. etc. etc. Palendrom 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alkali Lake

Redundant cruft. All the useful information is covered in X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, and Weapon X. Chris Griswold 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran_Walsh

Patent nonsense. No such books exist, no such records exist. User IP has vandalised pages in the past Dodge 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

An enormous list of non-notable people. Why don't we just download the phone book? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion. The article asserts its importance and its content is verifiable. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 10:17
  • Keep. Standard practice on Wikipedia is to permit long lists of such data today. The information in this page is effectively a part of National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia. Were the article not to be kept the correct solution would be to merge the content into that article. However, if it were merged someone would just unmerge it right away due to the length. The long term maintance issues of such lists may someday result in their removal, but that isn't our practice today... and one by one AFD discussions isn't the right way to change the project's practices. --Gmaxwell 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Gmaxwell. I'm still concerned about the size of the article, but it's very young, let's give it a chance to grow (in quality, not size) a little while yet. Turnstep 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, elected leaders of an important national body, and a large proportion are notable of themselves. I would normally vote merge, but considering the length, this should stay separate. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Certainly needs some work, though. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have thought about it a bit and read through other peoples opinions and have come to the conclusion that it can't hurt to keep it. --Martyman-(talk) 10:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briogaid Dearg

Non notable fan group, linked by one page. Seems avanity project. Suggest merging into Shelbourne F.C.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin influence on other religions

Delete as a straight-up WP:NOR violation - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely unsourced, and rather unnotable. Although, I wouldn't object to a properly cited article on the subject if one were made. tmopkisn tlka 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is disjointed, unsourced, POV, ethnocentric and has not been improved in any manner despite many attempts to get contributors to subscribe to WP guidelines for contributions and is descending into warring edits over non-compliant material.--Tigeroo 08:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and a soapbox for touting a personal point of view on things in essay form. Byrgenwulf 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. This article is not ethnocentric as the chauvinistic neo-Buddhists are trying are convince Wikipedia authorities it is. The neo-Buddhists are always insaulting Brahmins for the dissapearence of Buddhism in India and when Brahmins show how much historical Brahmins have contributed, the neo-Buddhists try to cover it up from history. If the case is that this article is unsourced I can source everything, but this article has to remain to show the world the jealousy of the neo-Buddhists. -- maleabroad

  • This article needs to be deleted. It is clearly evident that this article has been put up with a complete political agenda. there is no encyclopaedic value of this article.--Yeditor 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Original research, POV, and unbalanced, e.g. it utterly ignores the fact that non-Hindu religious traditions have sometimes been critical of Brahminical Hinduism in practice. There might be an interesting article in here, but this isn't it. Anirvan 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smeek

This would appear to be a classic case of WP:NEO. The term is apparently in popular use at one forum. A quick check of the first couple pages of search engine results shows no verifiable secondary source. To the extent that this is verifiable, it fails WP:OR Erechtheus 05:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCLP2

Non-notable material created by fans for a game. No reliable sources exist. So sign of significant review or syndication. --Hetar 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lopacki

hoax or non-notable artist. No evidence of claimed notability given or apparent. Ghits: [14]. Fails WP:BIO --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Ass Job

{{prod}} tag was removed without discussion. The topic is a substub about an album to be released in approximately two years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mikeblas 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was

A Good Ass Job

Uhh, nominating again, for some reason this wasn't deleted. Crystal ball, etc per first discussion --Macarion 20:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted. This is a recreation. Speedied. When the album comes out, then we can have this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy (word)

WP:NOT (dictionary term) and generally unencyclopedic, not to mention free of almost any useful content. David Oberst 05:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UseModWiki

Article does not assert notability per WP:WEB Anadirgrowlslayer 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happenings magazine

This article cites to no sources about the magazine in question. Even if taken at face value about what the magazine is, this sort of locally focused free weekly publication is not notable. Erechtheus 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worker democracy

This article seems to have no notable basis as a real-world concept. It describes something that sounds like a specific theory (references to information technology impacting workplace, a "philosophy", etc), but provides absolutely no sources, proponents, or evidence of notability. I can find nothing out on the net that could be used to substantiate the article. The article was created two years ago, by a user whose sole two edits were this article, and has received no other content edits. For the hesitant, this is not the legitimate workplace democracy article. David Oberst 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But none seem to have anything to do with "information technologies" being "integrated into the organizational structure of businesses", "the cost of communication decreases", etc., which is the specific concept this article is purporting. "Democracy" is such a widely and variously used word that many common adjectives such as "worker" are going to pull up hits when combined with it, and not all phrases are going to share a coherent core concept to base an encyclopedia article on. In this case, I've found nothing that would apply to this article. If the above examples were to be used as the basis for some other article called "worker democracy" at a later date it would be unrelated to the current text, and this AfD will do no harm. - David Oberst 07:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm seeing that tmopkisn tlka believes this is a different concept from workplace democracy? is it? I'm seeing enough overlap that I don't know a merge would be appropriate. Could the difference, if any, be explained? Tychocat 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In answer to both comments, the articles I cited all seem to be talking about the same thing the article is, even if they do not mention specific details. Also, Tychocat is right, I saw alot of overlap as well, which is why I was very careful when pasting these links. I'll consider changing my vote, due to Oberst's comments, and to the fact that I was never really 100% behind this article in the first place. I'd like to think that those links might be of some help to other voters, since they took so long to find, but if they aren't, so be it. I did my best. tmopkisn tlka 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Spooky Men's Chorale

I'm not sure about the notability of this group. Few Google hits anyway... --Missmarple 06:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symphoniq Corporation

Spam for non-notable corporation --Xrblsnggt 06:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. as advertisement, article was originally written by a company employee, who in an edit summary of Symphoniq TrueView admitted that the article was a "Brief summary of my company's product." Due to the fact that it was added by a complany employee and it's low notabality, I've prodded Symphoniq TrueView as well. tmopkisn tlka 06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 155 distinct Ghits on firm, mostly their own white papers and vendor listings. No third-party multiple non-trivial articles. Confirmed admission article written by an employee (for future reference, on the page history for Symphoniq TrueView). parenthetically, there's no prod indication on the Trueview article at the moment. Tychocat 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HHO Gas

WP:OR, WP:HOAX, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination). This is simply another rehash of another Brown's gas that tricked the local media with smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. Sertrel 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even after CrazyRussian's modifications, I still maintain my nomination for deletion, and I agree that perhaps it should be WP:SALTed as well, since Brown's gas hoaxes will constantly re-emerge. On second thought, I propose a compromise. Since we all agree that this is a Brown's gas hoax, why don't we just make this a redirect to Brown's gas? We can even protect the redirect. We could even do the same for Aquygen. boyohio02, would you find this acceptable? Sertrel 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I appreciate the idea to redirect the article, however, the only problem with the above said compromise is that HHO Gas is not a Brown's gas. This was reported in the cited sources of Santilli's International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Paper, and the Company website science page. So I think that would be an even more misrepresentative change to redirect people to the Brown's Gas page than to keep the original page. boyohio02 18:37 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with the above. Probably merits a speedy delete. --Brianyoumans 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Update: As requested, I have reviewed the reverted article and considered the arguments below. I still think HHO Gas itself is a hoax; the only question is, is it a sufficiently notable hoax to need its own page? (Aquygen gets only about 900 google hits.) And would the authors be satisfied with a rewrite that made it sufficiently clear that this was notable only for being a fraud or delusion? I doubt it. I still vote for deletion. --Brianyoumans 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Further update: I would oppose a redirect to the Brown's gas page. I don't think the Brown's page is very good either. --Brianyoumans 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per voting at other Afd's. tmopkisn tlka 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and other afd histories. Can something be done about the other articles, such as Oxyhydrogen flame or the HHO redirect? I admit to being unclear about the process. Tychocat 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please, and possibly salt, since these articles seem to spring up like mushrooms after a thunderstorm. Byrgenwulf 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (Still delete after the reversion mentioned below, because the concept is still bollocks, whether it's promoted by a dodgy group or not. Byrgenwulf 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: I have reverted the reposted Aquygen stuff to a pre-Aquygen version, which obviates most or all concerns of the nom. Please re-evaluated your votes accordingly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rehash of Brown's gas. --Christopher Thomas 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is the second article relating to new hydrogen technology which has been recommended for deletion. There is obviously an unknown but disturbing agenda at work here. This is user intimidation. There is no excuse for what is being done to me. I have worked long and tireless hours working on this article, finding sources for the information, discussing both sides of the issue to ensure article neutrality, citing all sources used, ensuring that the sources are credible reliable and verifiable. I have studied this subject extensively to ensure accuracy. IF this page is deleted, I contend that it has been done so based not on sound wikipedia policy, but on personal disagreement with the article's ideas and facts. This represents what may only be described as user intimidation and bullying. I have also studied the rules and guidelines for Articles for Deletion (AfD) and this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. I will not be silenced by intimidation tactics by both users and administrators of this website. I have not committed any infractions or violations of the wikipedia policy, and my article does not deserve to be discredited and deleted as though the article which was written is my own personal view. The article is not original research but a compliation of information gathered from multiple credible and verified cited sources. boyohio02 18:00 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as complete bollocks Mr Stephen 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep The company responsible for this Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. has had research funding from several investors since 2000. Financial reports can be found through a simple google search. There apparently are several patents filed with the USPA for an engine claimed to generate this gas, although that is no guarantee that the technology is viable. I do however find it hard to believe that a "hoax" company would remain viable for so many years without one if its investors asking pointed questions. E.G. UTEK (a UK based company) claims 10% in Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. and is currently listed in NASDAQ and the NYSE. One would imagine that any company, whose goal is to make money, making such an investment would expect a return or at least evidence that a return was probable. Innocent until proven guilty. If you can't disprove the claim then the logical response would be wait to see if they can prove it.User:Anon 13:37 2 August 2006 (UTC)

AS per the previous statement regarding "blasting" the page with dynamite per WP:HOAX. From the Official Wikipedia Policy: Verifiability, not truth One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed.

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

The article which was reverted and removed addressed those uncertainty and controversy. Viewing the history will show the added section on the controversy. The Reputable Publishers and Reliable Sources provided are for Verification purposes only. I cannot confirm the findings of these sources, and as it is stated, that would be original research, and that is discouraged. As per the peer-reviewed scientific publications, I have listed that journal as the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9 , August 2006, Pages 1113-1128. and specifically at the following website. | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006 and | International Journal of Hydrogen Energy- Full Article

  • Speedy delete! - With the exception of the last link (which is to a web forum thread), and a link to a Pdf file that has nothing to do with the topic, all of the other links come up as "not found". This is a hoax, the stuff added above this comment being added by the IP user who inserted this article, and apparently has vandalised elsewhere (see User_talk:24.159.119.10). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Reference: This is the last comment I am going to make regarding this Subject! At some point when this technology is more readily available and becomes common knowledge, The article will be rewritten anyway so If its deleted, so be it... Therefore I am not going to waste my time with people who believe that EVERYTHING about this gas is a HOAX. I am however going to state for the record that this is in fact a real product. You can argue that this gas may NOT be a Revolutionary New form of Energy, but NOT That this is a Real Product. You can call up Donald Wann[16] with The Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky (a state employer) and ask them if they are using HHO Gas, They will tell you Yes. I called them and confirmed this. Fact is that HHO Gas is being used in commercial applications. The overwhelming reason that this article was submitted for deletion was on the basis that it is a HOAX. I submit that if that is the case, I have been fooled by one of the most Elaborate and Expensive Hoaxes in history!! For anyone who is interested in more information, please view the following video from Google Video. It is 15 minutes long, and there are interviews with credible people about their use of HHO Gas. Video - Approx. 15 min You can also download the powerpoint presentation provided by the Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky. | Powerpoint Presentation by Fulton County School District and Here | News Article from Fulton County School District

boyohio02 00:30 5 August 2006 (UTC) this is a working link for the interviews [17]

Keep

Opinion, opinion, opinion, stay away from opinion, stick to deletion criteria.

Ronald A. Knight guest.


I say KEEP KEEP KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot believe that here at WIKIPEDIA there are those who cannot follow simple research protocols such as following simple LINKS! I believe that the videos, and testimony speak for themselves! If you REALLY think this is a hoax, why don't YOU call the company, get references, etc. and find out for yourselves!

Ernest Cann-editor-THE SONS

1st contrib [18] - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, it's a total hoax, this is the kind of stuff that makes people question wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Streveln (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fairbanks

Not Notable; doesn't actually seem to be associated with Billionaires for Bush anymore, and otherwise has few verifiable reasons to be notable (check the history if you want to see what someone, probably BF himself, wrote about him; see also my comments on the Talk page --Brianyoumans 06:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoto

Protagonist for a non-published game. The official game website has only "concept art" and a "demo reel". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creator, Josh Viola, does not seem to be a notable game designer, so it wouldn't even fall under notable (WP:NN), anticipated upcoming games (e.g. Metal Gear Solid 4) Sertrel 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was '. --Ezeu 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stokes

Not notable enough to have a page in wikipedia. Aminz 07:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google show about 815 hits for "michael stokes' +programmer, most of which are his resume as per the WP article. There are also a lot of reprints of a bio which begins, "On November 6th of 2002, Michael Stokes, programmer of Shareaza, released version 1.7 of his software..." The relentless appearance thereof looks like advertising, and reprints of a press release. I am unable to find multiple non-trivial third-party articles about him per WP:BIO. One product he's associated with, gnutella2, is notable, and I hope he's mentioned therein. Per WP:BIO, I do not see enough notability for his own article. Tychocat 08:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to shareaza. He's probably associated with the software more often than not anyway. --ColourBurst 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procode

No assertion of notability. Sounds like advertising: "ProCode is the user-friendly, warm-yet-knowledgeable community you've been searching for your whole life." Edcolins 07:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I note the link to the website only has the following message: "ProCode is no more, please visit CodeBlank.net for all your programming needs. We have decided to move onto hacking..." This website also has a posting that "I am leaving programming to Codeblank now. Procode was not working out, and it got a bad start..." Parenthetically at this point, I would note the creator of this article is named Proc0de, and thereby point out possible WP:VAIN concerns. Tychocat 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Fang Aili. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popomatic

nn spam - Delete --Spring Rubber 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't know that it fits a speedy for "Patent nonsense" since it claims to be an indie music "bible" at the end. As such, fails notability for Alexa (below 100,000) and only 9990 hits for Google (allowing for the numerous game-store and eBay listings for the "Popomatic Trouble" game). The site has only been in operation since June, 2006, but this brings up to three final points: WP is not a web directory, you don't come here to become famous, and WP is not a crystal ball to predict fame and notability in any case. Tychocat 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Spam --Lomedae 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lomedae. --Tuspm (C | @) 13:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy del fresh copyvio cut'n'paste. `'mikka (t) 08:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamcracker

Looks like a bunch of spam to me --Spring Rubber 07:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Democracy

This article appears to be a position paper or essay or some sort, not an encyclopedic article. There appears to be no generally notable concept of that name being reported on. The sole reference sourcing appears to be the usage at ITDG.org/Practical Action (website). While it is quite interesting, a think-tank or NGO creating a term or publishing a discussion paper does not necessarily create an encyclopedic concept (i.e. notability, WP:NOR). I can't find any immediate indication that the concept has developed any significant usage outside this organization. All content edits were made by an anon. David Oberst 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book (text message slang)

neologism: Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Spring Rubber 08:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ImranC 11:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Uncle G as a copyvio (log). BryanG(talk) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavoured paper

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Edible paper does exist and we could use an article about it, but this article is not it. Author removed prod and prod2, so moving debate to AfD. SWAdair 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The author(s) seem intent on including these people in the Wikipedia, having edited the October 30 pages as well as creating pages in their own names. Other nonsense such as this has also been added. I'd also suggest possibly Speedy Deleting as pure vandalism, based on those other edits. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: YOUR FUCK HEADS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokilik (talk • contribs)
  • comment: gah. you suck. technicalities suck balls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokilik (talk • contribs)
  • FUCK YOU CRUSTACEAN. Mokilik is 100% right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmool (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete as complete bollocks written about what tangentially could be a reasonable subject. It seems this is vandalism, as well, given the eloquent manner in which the case for the opposition is being argued. Byrgenwulf 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we should ignore the vandals and look to see whether an article on flavoured paper can be written from sources. There's Hollie Shaw (2004-09-27). "HBI's rolling papers fill void as smokers spurn packaged cigarettes". Financial Post. which discusses a cigarette paper manufacturer's production of flavoured paper, for starters. Uncle G 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason Consumed Crustacean should take all the blame. Tychocat 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per Byrgenwulf. --BrownHairedGirl 11:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, would this get merged into recycling or into a cookbook? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LSD — er, I mean delete per all deletion arguments above. Anville 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --BobFromBrockley 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an Instruction Manual. No verifiable sources are cited either. Scorpiondollprincess 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this article probably requires a deletion, or cleanup, this line is hilarious - "You can add candy, pastries, even meat to taste." LOL Xenocidic 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual... or cookbook. The tone is completely unencyclopedic and the article is in violation of WP:RS and WP:V. Mokilik and Kelmool, please try to stay cool - if you could explain what makes this product notable or provide some sources, we might be more likely to allow the article to remain, but swearing at editors isn't going to help. Srose (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Copyright violation from this site, just with two names added, and the really weird bits, like munching in class and adding meat. Byrgenwulf 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Info
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRIET

Prodded, but submitter removed the notice (as per the template's instructions). This looks like a non-notable advertisement to me. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio - major chunks are taken from the website. While I am reluctant to quote Google regarding a foreign website, I note Alexa ranks about 943,434. I agree it's an advertisement. Tychocat 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can blank it and report it via the {{copyvio}} tags if it is copyvio, in which case this AFD is redundant. Yomangani 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lynne

Possible hoax. I've never heard of her, and it appears that Google hasn't either, if you restrict the search to pages from New Zealand.-gadfium 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm willing to hold off on a final nom until after Ziggurat checks back. I can say that Lynne isn't listed on the credits for the 1978 NZ version of Rocky Horror Picture Show. I also note that a search for "rocky horror picture show" "new zealand" "ruth lynne" turns up only three hits, this article and two mirrors. Tychocat 10:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up turns out I can do a database search from home: according to the NZ superindex (New Zealand newspapers, magazines, etc. dating back about as far as you can go) and Newztext plus (newspapers, magazines, abstracts, etc.) this is bunkum. The only mention is of a Ruth Lynne Mason who graduated from Massey's college of business in 1999. Ziggurat 10:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Baird (second nomination)

Delete. Page of a failed political candidate. Non-notable unless he runs again. SFont 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird for earlier AfD.

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

The result was delete. DS 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky "Rocco" DeGiglio

Clearly nonsensical, gets 11(!) GHits. Non-notable and generally rubbish. Ruaraidh-dobson 09:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delele. (nothing to merge as already mendioned at Port Moody Secondary School) --Ezeu 22:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teens Transforming the Community

Not notable local organisation. All very altruous, but that doesn't give it notability. One of the authors has also requested deletion, tagged it as speedy author request, but the editing has come from two different accounts.ViridaeTalk 09:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does anyone have an objection to me just merging this article rather than faffing around with the deletion process? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have changed my vote accordingly. Kafziel 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. But I wouldnt merge the whole lot. ViridaeTalk 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, doing it now. I wont merge it all just stick some of the relevant content in and be done :D --ErrantTmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPSWiki

This is a plug-in for Nuxeo CPS; Nuxeo CPS gets 163 unique Googles, this gets 71. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choral Public Domain Library

I can't figure how this site asserts notability. WP:WEB tests fail and it's mostly a music listing. There are many sites like this. The article looks vanity, also. Philochantfil 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmod lua viruses

Original research about viruses that exploit a Half-Life 2 mod (Garry's Mod). Fails: WP:NOR and WP:V. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. Sango123 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Zaloom

This seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PROF, WP:V and in all likelihood a few others as well. Oh yes, probably WP:VANITY. I'm not sure whether it can be speedied though. Also, nominating a very similar bio: Anne Rademacher written by the same new user, for much the same reasons. Byrgenwulf 09:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For simplicity's sake, that remark applies to both articles. BigHaz 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Fang Aili. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RickstaR Riot

Fails the general Wikipedia policy of WP:CITE, and therefore breaches WP:V. More specifically, it appears to fail WP:BAND. Delete. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Opera

Non-referenced and the "criticism" is POV, just as if it was an article on "eulogy" of Opera. ;-) The facts should be merged in the main article, but not as non-sourced opinions. bogdan 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete under criteria A7. --Allen3 talk 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocrana (band)

I'm not sure about the notability of this. A band formed by high-schoolers? Ruaraidh-dobson 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Strategy: modern politics in contemporary Britain

copyvio, as noted on article page; non-notable book (see WP:BK); essentially one of several vanity pages for publications of (or pub related to) the European Research Forum, all of which appear to have been created by User:Rodjaneandfreddy BrownHairedGirl 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible copyright violation and simply being a pointless article...Wikipedia is not a repository of book blurbs. Can this and the other one (on European cities or something) not be speedied, if they are copyright violations? Byrgenwulf 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can only be speedied if they've existed for less than 48 hours, the whole history is copyvio and the article is basically unwikified. Otherwise they should be reported using {{copyvio}} which has been done by BrownHairedGirl (as it is up for deletion as copyvio it probably wasn't necessary to bring it here too, but Delete per nom just in case) Yomangani 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete publicity for unimportant book --BobFromBrockley 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attraxun

Contested A7 speedy. Musical group who's sole claim to fame is self produced albums through the group's private record label. A Google search finds no indication of any type of independent source for the group.[19] Delete as unverifiable and failing to meet WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 11:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The City in Europe and the World

copyvio, as noted on article page; non-notable book (see WP:BK); essentially one of several vanity pages for publications of (or pubs related to) the European Research Forum, all of which appear to have been created by User:Rodjaneandfreddy --BrownHairedGirl 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible copyright violation and simply being a pointless article...Wikipedia is not a repository of book blurbs. Byrgenwulf 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - publicity for unimportant book. --BobFromBrockley 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Pure Outfitters

The company doesn't meet WP:CORP notability criteria --RMHED 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.E.M.L.A

Contested prod. Throw-away protologism from a comedy show that does not even have a consistent definition. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 by User:Fang Aili. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanworld

Non-notabale site, fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Jacek Kendysz 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Sango123 03:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Dot's Uncles & Aunts

No info in the article, it does not appear to warrant a seperate page. Any further info on these side characters could go in the main article Little Dot. GHits for these characters:<40. Lomedae 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. My mind is changed enough to feel it merits a redirect to Little Dot. How much is there to say about this particular comic, though? It's a spin-off of a spin-off, and I wouldn't say 13 years is particularly long at all for comic books. 37 Google hits is not inspiring, either. Your thoughts? Kafziel 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there's at least enough to say about if for a full-length non-stub article. To start with, there's the task of describing the more prolific aunts and uncles themselves (if you're not familiar with Little Dot, she had hundreds of aunts and uncles, all of whom were obsessed with one particular thing). It's hardly unprecedented to have an article on a children's/humour comic, there are dozens of them, in fact. As for 13 years, it is definitely quite a long time for a non-Marvel/DC book to be published. Spawn, Cerebus, and Walt Disney's Comics and Stories are a few other examples. Bone (comics) made it to 13 years too, but that was with a highly irregular publishing schedule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about the 13 year thing, and I was just unfairly comparing it to the likes of Archie or Little Lulu. It just seems to me that the Little Dot article is plenty small enough to fit information on the spinoffs. And unless there have been published lists and descriptions of all those aunts and uncles (I can't find any, but maybe they're just not online), it kind of necessitates a pretty big amount of original research and unverifiable information. Making it a subsection of the main article removes some of the pressure to contribute O.R. for the sake of expansion. Kafziel 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GogoBaby

Incomplete AfD nomination, being completed by me. Suspect nominated for being pure advertising and having no encyclopedic merit.➨ ЯEDVERS 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abc1uk.co.uk

Article about a web forum and fan site for the UK television channel ABC1. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misreading the guideline. You're saying that the website has published interviews and scheduling information, but that has nothing to do with the requirement. To meet that requirement, Abc1uk.co.uk would have to be the subject of articles in other publications, such as in Entertainment Weekly or Time or some such thing. I see no evidence of that. In fact, when you first created the article, you admitted that it was an unofficial website. [20] Essentially, it is a non-notable fan site, which is the reason it has been listed here. Kafziel 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, sorry for that, I just misunderstood the guideline when reading it a bit ago. Lloydje 19:24, 2 August 2006 (BST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Liberatore, 2006). 12:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefsism

  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.


I believe this article may be a hoax; there are other 'isms' out there we do not know of, but this one is a suspected hoax, I haven't found any reliable sources. Hence the nomination for AFD. HorroWiol 10:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: JasonWHall1 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
— Possible single purpose account: Bus Driver Matthew R (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
— Possible single purpose account: SomersetWalkSand (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
— Possible single purpose account: LockAndKey12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions 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. Sango123 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Ardania

Not notable webgame. No reliable sources seem to cover the game, fails WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Website's Alexa ranking is 4,105,227 and the site gets 194 google hits. Peephole 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Sergio Assad

Redundant information with the main Sergio Assad page. -- Amazzing5 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OILIX

Already covered in the Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake article, not notable enough for its own article --Mitaphane talk 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N900SA

The article is not an encyclopedic entry but a news report. It could be moved to Wikinews.JRSP 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I am not sure whether this is a notable aircraft (it might) but I disagree that this is "just a news report". It definitely has the potential to become a fully encyclopedic article about this aircraft, and is already not just about the incident. Kusma (討論) 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Kusma's comments. I'd like to see this become an article about the aircraft itself, with the "news report" portion of it relegated to just one section of an article on what seems to be a notable aircraft. Scorpiondollprincess 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I believe the aircraft - and the drug seizure from it - is notable enough to warrant its own page, and it should simply be edited and expanded upon to bring it up to the appropriate level of quality. —LoganCale (talk | contribs) 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Expand and rename: Ok, I accept this could become a good article someday, I would suggest a more telling name like "N900SA DC-9" or something similar. It is difficult for a non-expert to realize what this article is about only by reading the title.--JRSP 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what the first line is for, where it says: The DC-9 aircraft with the former tail number N900SA. The N would mean, US. Have you never heard of a YV - CP, Yankee Victor Charlie Papa? They're useful for peole who live under repressive dictatorial regimes. Sandy 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Council of Britain boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day

Is this really notable enough for a separate article? Surely a bit at Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) and Muslim Council of Britain should be sufficient to cover this topic.copyright violations to have large blocks of BBC articles in the middle of our article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linesman (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. DS 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Lockheart

Not clear whether this is a prank, spam or just generic fluff. GHits for this person with this spelling:1, a user on a forum. NN. Lomedae 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Bonafide nomination. Not convinced by arguments to keep – on the contrary. --Ezeu 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playray

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Article was deleted in Februari 2005 and recreated in February 2006. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 55,833 and it scores 71,100 google hits. Peephole 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First about Alexa ranking: almost no-one uses Alexa tool bar in Finland, so Finnish sites do not have as good Alexa rankings as their real traffic should give.

Playray is one of the most popular web services in Finland, and currently the service is internationalizing rapidly - in a same manner like Habbo Hotel (which also has a Wikipedia article and which is a much smaller service in Finland than Playray). The Playray community is very strong and the service has a devoted following. If this article needs to be deleted, then it means that Pogo.com, Habbo, and many other gaming community service articles should be deleted too. :(

Check out the categories the Playray article belongs to --> those category lists are full of articles of similar or smaller online gaming services. Why aren't they under deletion? Who defines what services are big enough to be described in Wikipedia?

There's also information about Playray in German and Finnish Wikipedias. These articles are made by several users who really wish to give accurate information. It's a sad thing that someone thinks that as spam.

  • No deletion same kind of service/article as Habbo for example.

Article clearly belongs under online games category, no delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.176.19 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth man

Article reads as spam/advertising. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EarthMan exists in reality as a work of art. It is a non-commercial form of expression on a non-commercial website (nothing is for sale on the linked website http://www.dionlaurent.com and it's pages) EarthMan was created initially in 1992 in Tokyo Japan and is an on-going performance and installation art project. Linked web pages are noted as reference to EarthMan and similar and related projects. Nothing noted is commercial, spam or advertising. It is matter of fact of an artist, his art, and his art history. laurentdion

Delete. The artist may be WP:N, but this particular project doesn't seem to be. It did win a 2nd place for Performance in the Orange show art car parade in Houston. 740 Ghits for "dion laurent" +art --Clappingsimon talk 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Page EarthMan is an ongoing project that has been performed across the SW of the US and on the west coast and will be performed numberous times this year in the US and internationally. In these days of global warming, increased pollution and CO2 emissions, desertification, heat waves and drought, EarthMan is relevent hybrid of art and science. The title of the work as an entity is more significant than the name of it's creator. laurentdion

  • Save Page

see similar entries, famous or not

Here is a similar entry of living artists' work, and below, a few other listed works of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates Please view this entry for similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_%28painting%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starry_night --Laurentdion 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save Page

If as per nom, then edit the offending links. This work of art is non commercial and therefore cannot be spam or advertising. Again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates

If any one here voting for deletion has any expertise in art and art history, I would love to hear of it.

Art is not a treasure in the past or an importation from another land, but part of the present life of all living and creating peoples. Franklin Delano Roosevelt --Laurentdion 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggested on the discussion page that the artist create a page for him/herself and include a description of this work there. I think that the examples given above are not particularly relevant due to the severe disparity in notability between those works and this one. The POV pushing in the comment above is unwelcome and hardly likely to help your case, Laurent, btw. Wikipedia is, by nature, not a community where "experts" have more rights than anyone else. FDR, for instance, was not an expert in art or art history, but you feel comfortable in using him to speak for your viewpoint. Richardjames444 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reinstating the afd tag on the article. Please do not remove it while this discussion is continuing. My mistake. User:Laurentdion created duplicate pages under Earthman and Earth man. I redirected the first, which didn't have a delete request, to the second. Richardjames444 17:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at least I think I did. i would appreciate it if someone checked this for me.Richardjames444 17:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Page

Richard, I appreciate your suggestion. However, this entry is about the EarthMan project, not the artist or creator. This is all new to me, but in reading through all of the guide to deletion and deletion policy, I see no relevent facts to delete this entry. Editing, perhaps. And yes, I am comfortable to quote FDR as above. Perhaps you all have heard of The New Deal and The Federal Arts Projects of FDR and his admin.?! From the Wikepedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT "Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view." There is no point of view in the EarthMan entry, nor in links. "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." EarthMan is an artistic invention, a work of art. http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar_winners.html see the judges/jury page for notables http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=115534 EarthMan is mentioned, but not the creator http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:StH8czlLHbwJ:news.surfwax.com/cars/files/Edsel_Car.html+EarthMan,+art+car+parade&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12 http://artsextra.com/xyz/gallery/gal_050807_jacklondonsq.html Airport is EarthMan’s survival pod. EarthMan was apprehended performing on the golden gate bridge San Francisco art news. Also shown on channel 5 news bay area in an interview during that installation and performance series http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2006-03-16/calendar/beenthere.html EarthMan is dubbed GreenHouseMan… "Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties." EarthMan entry is not critical but rather a descriptive article, grounded in the above cited links. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates.

Of course I cited FDR. Please view these links: You may never have heard of Jackson Pollock or Thomas Hart Benton if not for… http://www.wpamurals.com/wpabios.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project http://www.wpamurals.com/ http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:CThpQWtBr2QJ:www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html+Franklin+Delano+Roosevelt,+new+deal,+art&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

There is precedent here for works of art in many regards, separate and inclusive of the artists or authors. --Laurentdion 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Laurent, I fail to see how any of the sources you give report anything that's actually in the wikipedia article. In fact, the sources say Earthman is "a guy clad in a genuine-looking spacesuit on a Segway scooter" and say nothing about a structure (Arts Extra gives a structure, but little information on what it is. The fact that "Air Port" is part of the Earthman project had to be supplemented by you.). I'm also worried about on the sources themselves. So, the articles and the third party sources don't mesh, and the third party sources themselves give so little information about the project that it's probably not going to meet either. If all the information about the project is coming from the primary source (you), then it is in danger of being vanity. Oh yeah, please don't vote multiple times (the closing admin will be unhappy with you, at the very least) - I've striken out all of your other votes. --ColourBurst 06:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ColourBurst, In fact, Earthman is "a guy clad in a genuine-looking spacesuit". That's the work. It's EarthMan, not SPaceMan, though he is "a guy clad in a genuine-looking spacesuit", "a complex sytem..." designed to keep a person alive in the extreme environments of earth."

See "technical specs. 1 - Human, ... 1 - Silver reflective suit." It is a form of expression and an invention reflecting the reality of global warming, heatwaves, droughts, blah, blah... Spacesuit implies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit "A space suit is a complex system of garments, equipment and environmental systems designed to keep a person alive and comfortable in the harsh (lack of) environment of outer space. This applies to extra-vehicular activity outside spacecraft orbiting Earth and has applied to walking, and riding the Lunar Rover, on the Moon."

EarthMan is in an "earthsuit" so to say. Say of EarthMan:

EarthMan is a work of art and an invention. "EarthMan is a complex system of garments, equipment and environmental systems designed to keep a person alive and comfortable in the harsh (lack of) environment of Earth. This applies to extra-vehicular activity on Earth as applied to walking, and riding the Segway on Earth".

Those more sournce below are reliable sources that further unfold and are described in the other reliable and verifiable sources published text, photos, video and audio. Published images in the Houston Press and on their website show further what EarthMan is and describe his performance. Ch. 2 News Houston describes and shows video of EarthMan in detail, aired twice during prime time.

Of your concerns about WP:V WP:RS: There is nothing "obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful" in the entry, nothing dishonest or unbelievable about EarthMan as a work of art, cited sources have "demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing", including the orange show staff and judges. Oh yeah, I am not voting multiple times. I am reiterating the case to include EarthMan as a Wiki article. Below are more reliable and verifiable sources. Note the judges who voted 2 awards to EarthMan. View their credentials as arts professionals and experts in the field. Watch both publications of Channel 2 news prime time coverage including video and commentary of EarthMan. EarthMan is a work of art. It is published multiple times in reputable hard copy, video and internet news, and on the website and news pages of one of America's most reputable non-profit arts organizations.

http://www.orangeshow.org/vote2006/images/224.jpg

http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar_winners.html Best Performance, 2nd Place Best Entry Fueled by Alternative Locomotion, 2nd Place

http://www.orangeshow.org/2006%20Everyones%20Art%20Car%20Parade%20Buzz%20Sheet%20FINAL%20425.pdf Lists judges - "reputable experts in the field"

http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar.html

http://www.orangeshow.org/artcar_events.html "KPRC Local 2 will air the 2006 Everyones Art Car Parade Thursday, May 25 at 7 pm KPRC Local 2 Broadcasts the 2006 Everyones Art Car Parade during Prime Time!" EarthMan is shown performing and described in broadcast, #224 You can purchase a copy of the broadcast/publication from The Orange Show.

"Missed the Everyones Art Car Parade Primetime Broadcast? Never fear, KPRC Local 2 will air the 2006 Everyones Art Car Parade again this Saturday, June 10 at 2 pm." EarthMan is shown performing and described in broadcast, #224 You can purchase a copy of the broadcast/publication from The Orange Show.

http://www.orangeshow.org/2006%20Ev1.net%20Art%20Car%20Weekend%20FAQ%204_11.pdf --Laurentdion 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Okay, let's try this. Do you have more than one source (news, art reviews) that specifically talks about Earthman alone in a substantial way, and not just a blurb? If so, then I'll be happy to retract my vote, but there's nothing in your links about Earthman but one-liners. The recently created Dion Laurent is fine - the article includes substantial reviews about Dion Laurent's work. --ColourBurst 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given User:Laurentdion recent outbursts and obvious disinterest in consensus, I requested an author delete of the article, which was granted. Richardjames444 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richardjames444, I appreciate your time,effort and insight in creating a stub for theartist. Though I still reiterate my "keep" vote for EarthMan, I believe enough said for now. Thank you again for your time and efforts. Cheers--Laurentdion 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advert. No reason has been given for why this page should be kept. I also re-redirected the duplicate page (you should add that page to this nomination. If you do in the future, my vote will be Delete Both). -Royalguard11Talk 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


http://deadpool.rotten.com/profiles/09/04/34977.html I just googled you to check on your WP:N And this is the return: http://deadpool.rotten.com/profiles/09/04/34977.html I've opened my world to the world, and yours is this.

"The Rotten Dead Pool is a classic death pool implemented as a software toy.

The rules are simple: Choose 10 people whom you think will die in the next year. For more information, seek help.

Registered users can select from our list of celebrities to generate a profile. As celebrities die, players with matching picks earn a point. Ties of score shall be settled by closed meeting of the Star Chamber, awarding points based on style. Thus, a Kurt Cobain receives far more credit than a Bob Hope. Here, age and unexpectedness of death play a hand."

"Article reads as spam/advertising." Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You win. Hurry, hurry, delete, you win. EarthMan is dead! --Laurentdion 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, read this Laurent, you might learn something. Wildthing61476 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility? You bet on peoples lives and death and want to direct one towards civility. I think you play that game here too. I'd email you these comments personally, but you've blocked emails from users. Understandable. --Laurentdion 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet on peoples lives?? Ok, this was JUST an article on Wikipedia that I felt was not notable for inclusion. Calm down, relax, and it's not the end of the world. Wildthing61476 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see again: http://deadpool.rotten.com/profiles/09/04/34977.html . It's you, no? Uh, and as you nominated for deletion above "Article reads as spam/advertising." What do you feel!

I find this all amusing and laughable. And so I choose to edit EarthMan as such:

Earth Man , also known as EarthMan, is the name of a phenomenon which has polarized people around the world, being either the product of vivid imagination or a creature that has somehow avoided close observation or capture by man.

Earth Man is described as a large, bipedal silver humanoid creature living in remote wilderness areas of the United States and of Canada, specifically those in south western Canada, the Great Lakes, the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, large cities of the U.S. Northeast, and the U.S. Southern states. Some claim it is a creature which may be found around the world under different regional names, such as the EarthMan, Earth(Hu)man or is at least a closely related species. Sightings have allegedly occurred in Malaysia, China, Japan, Europe, and South America. [1] [2] [3]

The majority of scientists reject the possibility of the creature's existence, and consider the stories of Earth Man to be a combination of unsubstantiated folklore and hoax. This is due to current scientific knowledge plus the lack of bones or a body.


Contents [hide] [hide] 

   * 1 EarthMan phenomenon
   * 2 EarthMan
   * 3 Eyewitness reports
   * 4 Psychological explanations
   * 5 Mainstream response

[edit]

EarthMan phenomenon

EarthMan is one of the more famous creatures in cryptozoology. Cryptozoologist John Green has postulated that EarthMan is a worldwide phenomenon (Green 1978:16).

Many who consider the creature's existence a possibility claim that accounts of large, silver, ape-like or "wild man" creatures (or reports of inexplicably large, human-like footprints) from the Pacific Northwest date as far back as the late 20th century. Some researchers have argued that these earlier accounts are consistent with more contemporary EarthMan reports, while critics doubt their authenticity and question the accuracy of interpreting older reports through modern preconceptions. Skeptics also question the authenticity of these earlier reports in general, as many of them were not documented before the 1990s.

The earliest unambiguous reports of gigantic ape-like creatures in the Pacific northwest date from 1992, after a series of alleged encounters at a location in Washington later dubbed EarthMan Canyon, as related in The Oregonian [8] As noted in "Etymology" below, similar reports appear in the mainstream press dating back at least to the 1990s.


[edit]

EarthMan

The late Smithsonian primatologist John Napier noted that "the term EarthMan has been in colloquial use since the early 1990's to describe large, unaccountable human-like footprints in the Pacific northwest" (Napier, 74). However, according to Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, Andrew Genzoli deserves credit for the first formal use of the word on October 5, 1994 (Coleman and Clark, 39-40). Genzoli was a columnist and editor at the Humbolt Times, and that day's front page story showed Jerry Crew, a bulldozer operator on a road-building crew, holding an enormous plaster cast of a footprint. The text began, "While the tracks of old EarthMan [sic] have been in evidence for some time...," before detailing the worker's claims to have discovered an enormous footprint at an isolated work site.


[edit]

Eyewitness reports

Some cryptozoologists have argued that the most persuasive circumstantial evidence for EarthMan's existence is the high number (possibly thousands) of credible eyewitness reports from individuals, who claim to have clearly seen creatures that they describe as large, bipedal and ape-like and shiny silver.


[edit]

Psychological explanations

Arguing against the existence of EarthMan, anthropologist David Daegling suggests that EarthMan fills a basic human need for mysteries and monsters.


[edit]

Mainstream response

Skeptics

Wikipedia editors and academics generally "discount the existence of EarthMan because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a silver prehistoric, bipedal, ape-like creature of such dimensions is scant". Furthermore, the issue is so muddied with dubious claims and outright hoaxes that many scientists do not give the subject serious attention. Napier wrote that the mainstream scientific community's indifference stems primarily from "insufficient evidence ... it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather than beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible" (Napier, 15).

--Laurentdion 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So I did that YEARS ago, who cares? And why pray tell are you searching into my private life OUTSIDE of Wikipedia? This borders on stalking and I will request that you STOP this. Wildthing61476 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling is stalking? Wow! Years ago? Verifiable and Reliable! WP:V WP:RS

Player: wildthing61476 Score: 3 Hometown: Towson, MD Registered: 15-Jan-2005

  1. WHOM SUMMARY BORN PICKED DIED

1 Eddie Albert Oliver on Green Acres 22-Apr-1906 15-Jan-2005 26-May-2005 DEAD 2 Johnny Carson Longtime host of Tonight Show 23-Oct-1925 23-Jan-2005 23-Jan-2005 DEAD* 3 Billy Graham Televangelist 07-Nov-1918 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 4 Albert Hofmann Discovered LSD 11-Jan-1906 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 5 Lamar Hunt Founder of the American Football League 02-Aug-1932 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 6 Pope John Paul II Roman Catholic Pontiff, 1978-2005 18-May-1920 15-Jan-2005 02-Apr-2005 DEAD 7 Bil Keane Bland Family Circus cartoonist 05-Oct-1922 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 8 Jerry Lewis The French can have him 16-Mar-1926 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD 9 William Rehnquist US Supreme Court Chief Justice 1986-2005 01-Oct-1924 15-Jan-2005 03-Sep-2005 DEAD 10 Abe Vigoda Fish on Barney Miller (not dead yet) 24-Feb-1921 15-Jan-2005 TBD ADD

  • Celebrity died before picked by player. See Rule III.

I'm done with this, I'm tired of your childish attacks and I have reported this to the Wiki admins. Wildthing61476 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redivorce

Article fails WP:WINAD; article is a protologism coined by author of the article and is thus not a candidate for Wiktionary. The author, User:Pilgrim27 has been inserting his own (unaccredited?) research into existing family-related articles or creating other new articles (e.g. Remarriage). -Merope 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tap Out

Article seems to violate WP:NOT as a drinking game invented at college. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 13:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Rivals

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 506,657 and the site scores 83,000 google hits. Peephole 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgins: a Musical Threesome and Virgins the Play

Unencyclopedic advert-cum-review for non-notable play, posted twice. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 23:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DataSynapse

This and other pages all added by a single user as well as spamming the external links of articles to DataSynapse's website. Delete as spam of products with no reliable sources of information meeting WP:CORP. See the original AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataSynapse. This wasn't speedied as I feel it should be kept intact if the products happen to be kept. Also listing the products:

Wickethewok 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam, with possible lock to prevent recreation. -- Bovineone 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three articles, per above and since the company fails WP:CORP. Wmahan. 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you guys are bulldogs. This is no different than sites by Quest Software, Wily Technologies, Computer Associates, etc. Why do you guys have such a problem with this site? If you have a problem why wouldn't you edit the copy to be less advert oriented? HouKid. 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument: "but everyone's doing it" didn't work in elementary school, and it doesn't apply here. There is a distinction in that some companies are notable and others are not. (See WP:CORP). This company is no Computer Associates. I think the bully is the one who abuses a not-for profit to get free advertising. --Xrblsnggt 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as spam. As Xrblsnggt said the argument "but everyone's doing it" and didn't work in elementary school, it's a non-notable company. --Bigtop 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand CA being a notable company based in New York, but who makes the call on these other companies in NY with Wikipedia listings: Aeroflex, On2 Technologies, Spectracom, Vector Marketing and Xandros? Are these companies more notable than DataSynapse? Or should these other non-notable companies be also slated for deletion? I'm just trying to understand the fine line keeping these other companies untouched...User:Moonmix
Comment the preceding remark was actually made by 12.158.31.82 who intially signed it HouKid. Yomangani 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure why someone would try and change usernames, etc. I made my earlier comments based on WP:CORP facts, but someone is trying to sabotage them. My comments stand. Focusing on the real issue of notibility and adverts, with the latest edits Shigdon made to DataSynapse I am fine with keeping the page, but the product pages should be merged. No further comments will be made on this page. HouKid 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some third party, non-biased articles regarding DataSynapse: From Computerworld magazine, "Wachovia uses grid technology to speed up transaction apps: DataSynapse deployment draws power from pool of 10,000 CPUs": http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000476 From Wall Street and Technology, " Merrill Lynch Drives Efficiency Through Grid Computing": http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187203186 Named a JBoss Innovation Award Winner: http://www.jbossworld.com/jbwv_2006/innovation.htm - http://www.jbossworld.com/jbwv_2006/innovation_awards/JBIA_DataSynapse.pdf Just wanted to point these out to show that this company meets the criteria of notable. Thanks, User:Moonmix

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alcon. --Ezeu 23:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systane Lubricant Eye Drops

A non-notable product made by Alcon. Lorty 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Alcon's page doens's say any information about Systane, it does list it as one of its products. Redirect, please.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonstersGame

No evidence of notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Previous afd result was no consensus. Peephole 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Peephole 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted per creator's request. Turnstep 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satiyoruz.biz

Prod'ed, de-prod'ed, re-prod'ed, re-de-prod'ed. So here it is. Per prod reasons: "Advertising for non-notable business; fails WP:WEB" and "WP:WEB, WP:SPAM, probable advertisement". I agree. Fan-1967 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste (VelvetGeisha)

Tagged db-bio but contested. No assertion of notability is made in the article as written. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is WP:VAIN article, also google has 4 hits for this persons name, two linking back to her homepage. --Porqin 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come you nominated this page for deletion? The author of the site hasn't even been given time to write his case of why it shouldn't be deleted. Also I have also found more sites on Wikipedia that is of the same type that has been there for ages without getting deleted (like Masuimi Max) so what makes this article any different? Please respond as I would greatly like to hear your thoughts on this matter. I run the official fan club of that actress btw.. She may not be up to Masuimi Max's status yet but she has a fan base and we don't understand why the article on her has to be deleted. — Possible single purpose account: Velvetgeisha (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Any page can be nominated for deletion by anyone. This process takes 5 days of a community-based discussion, so the author of the page can come and discuss the reasons why the article shouldn't be deleted (as you appeared to have already done). Maxuimi Max is listed on the imdb along with having thousands of google hits (You can always nominate this page for deletion of you feel so inclined). Also, as running the "offical fan club" of VelvetGeisha, you go against the vanity guidelines as outlined by Wikipedia. --Porqin 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well most of the aricles on Wikipedia are written by fans of their subject to begin with. I mean.. who would write about something they don't even care about? Some maybe but most have some interrest in their subject. Also just because someone runs and official fanclyb doesn't mean they are die-hard fans... I know of people who work for the managment/agent of bands/actors etc. that get paid to run the fan club. --— Possible single purpose account: Animgoth (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity is one of the problems with the aforementioned article, but notability is the bigger concern. You haven't (so far) stated why VelvetGeisha is notable. Note: The use of multiple accounts in a discussion arena is against Wikipedia policy. --Porqin 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, delete redirect VelvetGeisha. The article contains several factual errors. Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are mutually intelligible. Also, what relevance does it have what languages she speaks? The article completely fails to state why she would be notable. Mackan 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What languages she speaks is under trivia for a reason... and altho danish, swedish and norwegian are on the same language tree they are still 3 different languages (with their own vocabulary etc.) and most norwegians don't speak or even understand swedish and vice versa. --— Possible single purpose account: Animgoth (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's all that relevant, but that's not true. See for example [[23]]. Also, I have yet to meet a Norwegian who doesn't understand Swedish. And I went to Norway. Mackan 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am norwegian and I know many norwegians who don't speak swedish (or understand it) and I know even less that understands danish..we do however have no problem reading danish due to the fact that Bokmål is very similar to the written danish and is in fact related to it.--Animgoth 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and loads of people collect blades but does that mean that the trivia part of angeling jolie's article should be deleted? --— Possible single purpose account: Animgoth (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yes. Why? Just zis Guy you know? 16:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Gothic Beauty appears to be an actual print magazine, so if she's really been featured there (rather than just mentioned) that might make her notable. But someone would have to find the article. --Allen 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the issue 12 spring 2004. SHe is one of the WIcked Talent Girls (UK).--Animgoth 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - withdrawn. W.marsh 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation Academy

Article is about a non-notable school, and seems to be more about the school's uniforms. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. WP:SCHOOL criterion of more than 100 years of history is met. But if anyone deletes the unencyclopedic content about the uniforms, that's more than all right with me .--DrTorstenHenning 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspec

Looks like WP:SPAM. One author, nothing links to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithunc (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 August 2006

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Stephens

Non-notable. Another upbeat post about a person who hopes to be a star one day. Pleasant, but as such belongs more on mySpace than WP. User active for exactly one day, a day which began and ended with this article. Bio cut and pasted from personal website. Potential vanity tagged for over a month, with no response. As far as I can tell, his highest-profile film role was as an extra in a Gene Wilder movie. Seems like a prototypical struggling actor, but the quest for notability does not itself convey notability. Still, I think some discussion is warranted as he's Australian, and to an American like me it's difficult to assess levels of celebrity there. Pagana 15:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep excellent rewrite. - FrancisTyers · 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Schinas

The assassin of King George I of Greece does not seem independently notable. He gave less than 30 Google hits [24] [25] (even considering that his given name is Aleksander or Alexander, not Aleksandar[26]), none of which seems to give much information besides the fact of the regicide itself. Even considering his motivation, Wikipedia (on the King George article) seems to be at odds with the rest of the web, where mentions as "deranged" or "lunatic" were vastly more usual than "Macedonian liberation fighter" (Macedonian nationalism at work?). Thus, unless somebody has more reliable information, the article should be deleted since its content is adequately covered with King George himself. --Huon 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rewritten, sourced version, move to Aleksander Schinas. --Huon 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The assassin is a Greek"
"his enlightened countrymen in Greece"
  • BTW, all the articles say tha Schinas was a Greek, not that he was a Macedonian or anything else. bogdan 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello bogdan. Thanks for uploading those articles. But to cite the NYT for a reliable source I find rather ridiculous. Even now, 100 years since then, the average american could not point out Europe on a map if they saw it, let alone in the far 1913 to divide ethnicities. Further, those uploaded articles, if you take a good look, do NOT say, Schinas was a Greek. The first definitely does not and the second has no relevance to any name. So it could be - yes, a portugese pirate as you said on my disc.page. I can see that it in fact IS the origin of Schinas that disturbs you. So the other infos that you pointed out might be kept but - in the matter of the origin it is still a dispute. Accordingly I am changing that remark to the previous, as it is a defile, until a really reliable source is found. --J. Cosmos 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and please don't change sourced information, and don't remove the reference. If you think it is incorrect, go find another reference to support your view. up+l+and 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    sourced infos should stay! Of course. Please take a look at the alleged sources and you will find that no information about the origin of Schinas is mentioned. Thank you. --J. Cosmos 13:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles say he was a "Greek subject" (i.e. a Greek citizen). They don't mention which were his origins (he may have been a Macedonian, but we need a source for that). However, we know that he named the Greek people, "his countrymen". bogdan 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, csd-a1, there was no useful content in the article. - Bobet 16:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3079

Removed without comment. There are infinate amounts of numbers out there, and wikipedia can't possibly have all of them. 11kowrom 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neokosmos

Role-playing game with little apparent notability, or certainly very new so not notable just yet - just 86 GHits for Neokosmos -wikipedia, so probably very little in the way of verifiable information. ~Matticus TC 16:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity unless third-party coverage turns up. Could be notable, based on claims in the article, but no evidence is given and the article appears to have been written by the game's creators. --Allen 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it was written by its creators. For third party coverage, please check reviews in A´Arca[27] and RedeRPG [28], two Brazilian sites, or public reviews such as the one in this forum [29] or Orkut [30]. Google Translator may help translating the Portuguese to English. More coverage was given on other sites and off-line media.--User:Krypteiaestudio 17:40, 2 August 2006
  • Delete per WP:V: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "English-language sources should be given whenever possible...". Would support Transwiki to Wikipedia Português so that the sources may be properly evaluated there. --Satori Son 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of straight edge groups

A DRV consensus determined that the previous outcome of an AfD discussion on this article was improper. Although a majority at DRV favored outright deletion, consensus for this result was not present at DRV, so the matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please consult both the original AfD and DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few ways to deal with that. One would be to temporarily userfy the page, using that to add the category to the bands with articles. When you're done, you could either put it up for speedy deletion, or blank the page for use as a sandbox. -- stubblyhead | T/c 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists are not the same as categories, lists allow a range of cross references not available through categorisation. Paul foord 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to further categorize. I nominated this list for the original AfD, and still feel that a category does the work better. The closing admin on that AfD asked me to categorize the list[31] once he felt consensus was reached, and I have already done this, so no further action needs to be taken if this is to be deleted. -- H·G (words/works) 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I don't think relisting to reach better consensus is a bad idea, I disagree with Xoloz's statement that "a DRV consensus determined that the previous outcome...was improper." As I read it, the consensus of the DRV was that the AFD was handled properly--every user involved in the DRV except the nominator endorsed the decision, and not a single one of the endorsing votes say that any decision made was improper. -- H·G (words/works) 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read carefully there: most folks are endorsing outright deletion. The term "improper" is not intended to imply the closer erred necessarily, only that the result is disfavored. The "outcome [i.e. not the closure]... was improper." Xoloz 15:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds BBS (forums)

Poorly written, not notable, contains no useful information Mackan 16:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Allow me to add there is no useable information in the article at all. If you have a look at it, you will know what I mean. The Newgrounds article already has a chapter on the Newgrounds BBS (which I think is too big already). Mackan 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd disagree that the section in Newgrounds is to big, in fact it hardly takes up a paragraph but I don't think that's worth argueing about at the moment. Canadian-Bacon 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's still worthless as an encyclopedic article. Sorry, but don't take this too personally. I know you wrote the article and you might feel bad about your hard work being deleted, but Wikipedia works like this and it could happen to anyone. Mackan 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is useless to Wikipedia. It should be deleted, there is no reason to have an entire article on Wikipedia about a website's forum. I am aware that there is a "Something Awful" forum article but it is much larger than the Newrounds BBS and will be to difficult to delete though I think it should be deleted as well. Overall, this article is pointless and definitely should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvisganon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Eluchil404 23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsebeth Baumgartner

Article is about a non-notable crackpock who faces multiple charges of harassment and intimidation. I feel sorry for her, but she needs a shrink not jail time and a Wikipedia article. Baumgartner brings up 559 hits on Google many of these being Wiki mirrors. Delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Curse of Tippecanoe without predjudice to it being dabbed later if necessary. Eluchil404 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Curse

Completely redundant with Curse of Tippecanoe, title doesn't even serve very well for a redirect Canadian-Bacon 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards Cabins

Page reads like advertising, prod removed by author, and for extra oomph probably vanity seeing as the author and article are the same. Wildthing61476 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurkins

Delete WP:CORP. Too bad it was deprodded - waste of AfD time. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JunJiDo

23 unique Google hits for this variant of karate apparently restricted to a single redlinked school. The only mystery is why it suddenly popped up on my watchlist, since there is no sign of it having been deleted before. Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Or maybe it's the redirect: JunJido is a redirect and JunJiDo is the page? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad McVeigh

Fixing this AfD nomination; I am not sure who actually first wanted this article deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've gone ahead an picked a version to revert to. It might not be perfect, but is essentially the version I saw when I opined above. Better to pick some decent version to revert to and let editing proceed than to leave it blank except for the AFD notice. GRBerry 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to James and the Giant Peach. Srose (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Glowworm

We don't need a whole article for one character from James and the Giant Peach. Staecker 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feline adventures

Advertising, vanity, crystal ball Wildthing61476 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep itThe author of the stories is Waid Harbison, he is a good friend of mine, so I used his name as my username here. User: waid harbison 2,August 2006 (UTC)
Writing an article about a good friend still constitutes vanity. -Merope 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is being currently published at iUniverse. Unless the book catches fire, drowns in water, or in any other way is destroyed, it will be available in book stores. It is not a prediction, it is going to happen.Also I do not believe it is advertisement at all! It is simply stating that it will be available to all bookstoresand not just a private book. That is what I was shooting for. user: waid harbison 18:58 August 2, 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It I'm new here and have just read the rules, the article seems completely abided by the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan S. (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP ITI'm new here at wikipedia, but after reading the rules and regulations, I belive strongly that this article abides by the rules. user: lola stricklin 21:08 August2 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I disagree with the "crystal ball" comments -- the book does appear to be available -- but I do agree that the article fails to establish notability. iUniverse is a vanity press; it certainly does not establish notability for the works published through it. Being "available to all bookstores" does not establish notability. If the book actually gets shelved in a large number of bookstores, that would probably establish notability. Failing that, I think we'd need a lot more evidence (a review from a reputable reviewer, etc.) Kickaha Ota 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is this not "crystal ball." Where is the book currently available? The article says, "The Feline Adventures is an upcoming bookseries to be published by iUniverse in the fall of 2006." and "The book plans to hit stores in September being able to order in 25,000 bookstores across America, and will also be available as an ebook and on three web sites." It sounds future-tense to me. Am I missing something here? Allisonmontgomery69 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I stand corrected; thank you. So I guess my "delete" becomes even deletier. Kickaha Ota 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't matter if it's going to be published - IUniverse itself is a self-publishing label. While not by itself a problem, it's also crystal ball and the informal criteria, being more well-known than an average cookbook or programmer's manual, seems to not have been met either. --ColourBurst 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment Are you people just disgremenating us who vote to Keep it, many other people had no contribs until later on, but the people who did come in later on said that said delete had no rude comment about them. User:lola stricklin 3,August 2006 12:42 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Identification

Neologism, moved from even more neological "THINGERPRINTS", Ghits mostly relate to automobile identification, no sources, etc. VoiceOfReason 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simmons Hall (Penn State)

I tried to let this die a quiet death, but to no avail. List of Penn State residence halls already exists, and I don't think that there's much to merge (no, not even the part about the deer). Delete. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney Pacific for precedent. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI see no reason that this article should be deleted, especially with the existance of the Atherton Hall article. I think they are of equal value, and if one stays, I don't see why the other should not. - --Melkay 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One difference is that Atherton Hall houses the Schreyer Honors College offices, and another is that a student's death there got alot of press and prompted significant changes at the university. Still though, that could possibly be incorporated into the SHC article and List of Penn State residence halls. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it is any consolation, I just nominated Atherton Hall for AfD. I didn't see alot of press for the student's death... but if anyone wants to make that argument the are free to do so at the appropriate AfD.--Isotope23 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deer did get press as well in U.S. News and World Report, unfortunately, said press is not available online. It was also featured on a number of television stations, even being picked up by CNN. ---Melkay 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The objections of those voting to delete have been sufficiently addressed in subsequent modifications. alphaChimp laudare 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talbot Green

Unencyclopedic, original research. The {{prod}} was removed by the author. Also, this article fails WP:HOLE as I couldn't begin to tell you what Talbot Green is after reading it. A city? A shopping center? A town? A housing complex? A neighborhood? What is it? BigDT 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funnly.blogspot.com

Removed without comment. A very non notable blog that fails WP:WEB Lorty 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 13:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron CMS400.NET

copyvioesque advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 (done by User:Bogdangiusca) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron CMS400.NET

Advertorial article on a content management system which is written by a user whose name is all over the manufacturer's website. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Mannus

possibly non-notable CobaltBlueTony 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, now that the little vandalwar is over (for the time being), I'd say keep per WP:BIO. 6 appearances with the 1st team if I understand correctly. That would qualify him under "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league..." as Glentoran F.C. is Irish Premier League.--Isotope23 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Irish Premier League is not fully professional. Some Glentoran players are professional and others are not (e.g. [34] describes Glentoran as having "only a couple of professional players") It is unclear whether Mannus is one of them, but as reserve goalkeeper it is unlikely. Oldelpaso 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as it currently stands, unless it can be proven he is a full pro. Qwghlm 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete if Mannus played in any of Glentoran's UEFA games, I'd be for a keep, but I can't see that he did and I'm not sure that six league appearances (given that the IPL isn't fully pro as Oldelpaso says) is enough. Or if he'd been the first choice goalie I'd have gone with a keep, but as he's off on loan, that's not going to happen for a while, if at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'Ian is currently facing competition for the role of Glentoran reserve goalkeeper from a more promising young talent named Ciaran McLaughlin' says it all. BlueValour 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney Heritage Society

A non notable local history society. The claim to notability on the article's talk page is not considered important enough to be included in the society's history on their website Nuttah68 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, since there's really nothing to merge except a non-idiomatic phrase (the rest are examples of blogs the author of the article happens to like). There is no point in creating a new section at the suggested target article saying that "a musical blog is a blog about music". - Bobet 11:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Blogs

SD removed: NN Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Diener

This article lacks reputable verifiable sources and is about a subject who appears to fail WP:BIO. Erechtheus 18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFXIclopedia

Article covering a wiki about the game Final Fantasy XI. The first two afds resulted in delete and no consensus. Imo, it is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia and fails WP:V and WP:WEB. The notability template has been slapped on the article but the editors have not provided any evidence of significant coverage by any reliable sources since the last afd and have removed the notability template. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 33,697, it scores 12,300 google hits, wiki has received about 15 million page views and has about 5000 editors.

To compare: Lostpedia, a wiki about the series lost also had its article removed (a correct decision imo) and has an Alexa ranking of 11,175 , scores 118,000 google hits, had about 19 million page views and has a similar amount of editors (about 5000). Also, lostpedia received some minor coverage (Business weekly, scifi.com), something which I consider the most important factor when determing notability about a website and as I've already said, the editors of the FFXIclopedia article still haven't provided any evidence of outside coverage by reliable sources (WP:RS). Peephole 18:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To meet WP:V there must be citations from reliable sources. A link to the site itself only proves that it exists - in this case to make it worthy of an article some other reliable sources must discuss the website to back its claims. I could start my own website and say "I have a billion users!" and "I'm the most visited site on the Internet!". Someone else must back up the claims made (and no, Alexa is not a reliable source). --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my comments in the previous AfD.--Kunzite 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Aquillion 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to external links. Mitaphane is exactly right - there is nothing interesting or non-obvious for this article to say. - Wickning1 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Whispering(talk/c) 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main argument for deleting is notability. I'd like to point out that FFXIclopedia has gained rank in Alexa ratings moving from the #4 spot, to the #3 spot passing the official Final Fantasy XI website. THAT is notable. You also keep quoting guidelines and not policies. Guidelines are just that, they are not the rule. --Ganiman 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice that the person who nominated this page is a main contributor to the WoWWiki page. Again, this page has all the same information as the WoWWiki page. As I stated in the last AfD discussion, if you want to delete this, then the WoWWiki needs a nomination as well.

    Regarding notability: All your statements about total users and total traffic and total Alexa rankings are in absolutes. They are not in relative terms. Relative to the FFXI universe, FFXIclopedia is extremely notable. As stated above, it is now the third most trafficked FFXI website, behind one site that caters to 8 MMORPGs, and another that is the premier database for FFXI material. FFXIclopedia is the premier site for FFXI guides and other information on the web. It has even surpassed the official game website for traffic. However, all these numbers are relative. You all seem to want to ignore relative figures. FFXIclopedia is notable. Just because you have never heard of it, does not make it non-notable. Within the FFXI community, of which none of you appear to be a part, FFXIclopedia is one of the most notable sites.

    Regarding verifiability: Ok, it can't be verified. Which is why I mention WoWWiki. The person who nominated this page, is a significant editor of the WoWWiki page. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Especially when both their entries look almost exactly the same. However, because more people play WoW, any AfD discussion, no matter how weak the arguments, will defeat the nomination. Check out the previous arguments to save the WoWWiki: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WoWWiki. None of them were even nearly as deep as the ones made to save the FFXIclopedia. In sum, they said, "It's popular, keep." Nothing about verifiability, nothing.

    This whole debate is hypocritical. If you are going to have such a huge stick up your ... then nominate WoWWiki for deletion too. The original person to nominate this article, for the third time I might add, is the biggest hypocrit of them all.

    I have nothing further. Just delete it. The Wikipedia as a whole is a farse. It's editors rule in their own little feifdom and cry foul when anyone pushes them out of sorts. I'm almost ashamed to admit that we both you the same base MediaWiki code. Wikipedia editors are a disgrace. --Rolks 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one is obligated to perform any particular work on any article here. If you feel another article does not comply with policy, feel free to make the change yourself. There's even a template message that addresses this point: {{sofixit}}. If this means nominating it for deletion again, go right ahead. We cannot allow ourselves be bound by problems that exist with other articles; otherwise we would never make any progress here. Each article must meet WP guidelines or face deletion/redirection, etc. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anything AbsolutDan has to say about this AfD is notable. He is completely biased about this article and no matter what evidence is presented supporting this article, he will continue to fight it. His previous arguments in the second nomination failed to cause the article to be removed, and it should be no different here. Showing proof of how similar articles are allowed to exist, but being just as non-notable as this article is a completely valid method for keeping this article. You claim that "we would never make any progress", yet that is how the world works. I've watched enough Law and Order (haha joke here) to know that in a courtroom you present previous cases to build your own. I also believe that the people who are part of the Final Fantasy XI community should be the judges on the notability of this article. Just because something doesn't appear in a newspaper or other "reliable source" doesn't mean it's notable to enough people. What we have here is a number of people, who know nothing about the Final Fantasy XI community, arguing the validity of this article. As I've said before, that's just laughable. --Ganiman 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ganiman: Considering you have just nominated WoWWiki for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (second nomination)), would you please change your vote above to delete as well? Unless you feel FFXIclopedia is exempt from the rules you quote at the AfD? --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will not change my vote. They are making the same arguments to keep their article that we are making here. WoWWiki is a notable resource of information for World of Warcraft players. No wikipedian can say otherwise. This entire ordeal about deleting these specific types of articles should raise discussion on a new type of policy. These types of articles fall into a very gray area in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Things get bad before they get better. I believe the arguing on both sides here should be enough to begin a topic on creating a policy to govern these types of articles. Guildwiki, FFXIclopedia and WoWWiki will not be the last of it's kind to find their way here. They are probably the top resources for people in each of their respective communities, which is absolutly notable, wether or not they are talked about in some reliable source. --Ganiman 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the Final Fantasy XI article. RFerreira 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this final [if only!] fantasy cruft, what with Wikipedia not being a web directory and all that. -- Hoary 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all participants: Ahem! Uncle G 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete for being a re-creation of previously deleted content. This is in fact exactly the same as NUGGET (AfD discussion), one of the very articles that inspired the creation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day in the first place. That went through a long deletion discussion in which it was decided that there simply aren't the sources describing this phenomenon to support an article. This article describes exactly the same thing, and cites zero sources, thereby giving no indication that we should revisit this discussion. Uncle G 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backpack flipping

Notability claim unsourced, reads like something someone made up in school one day Mark Grant 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morley_Hayes

Advertisement for non-notable hotel Carax 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 23:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renifleurism

Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, and no reliable sources appear to exist to expand this into an article Xyzzyplugh 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep in some form: no consensus for merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atherton Hall (Penn State)

Dormitory with no historical or architectural significance. A student died there when she fell from an elevator, but this produced exactly one external news story (outside the collegiate paper). There is nothing to distinguish this dorm from the hundreds of other dorms on college campuses across the U.S. Delete--Isotope23 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the only non collegiate paper I see from those links that covered it is the Post-Gazette (which I ref'd in my nom). Schreyer Honors College is housed in Atherton, but since it already has a rather nice article of it's own that mentions Atherton, I don't think it necessarily justifies a standalone article on the residence hall. I don't have any objections to mention in other articles about Penn State (it is already mentioned in List of Penn State residence halls), I just don't see any justification for an article about the dorm itself.--Isotope23 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there is enough for a non-stub article and it's a part of the farm of articles for that university, keep it. It would be one thing if there was a stub for every building and none of them were ever going to be expanded ... but there seems to have been some discretion here and they only have articles on their somewhat notable buildings. BigDT 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The information contained in this article could be easily fit into both Schreyer Honors College and List of Penn State residence halls. In addition, a general policy needs to be set for denoting "notable PSU buildings". Rctbone 20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could get behind a merge. In regards to what Rctbone has stated, I'd like to see a general guideline for University buildings... I'm not trying to pick on the PSU set of articles by any means, I think most college dorms don't really merit a standalone article unless they have a compelling architectural or historic context (and I've not seen many articles about other college buildings but I would extend that rasoning. Mention at Schreyer Honors College seems the best route.--Isotope23 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sly Forum

Prod removed, non-notable forum/website Wildthing61476 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Kchase T 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Christensen

Flattering mini-bio of some gamer. Christensen is already mentioned at Ninjas in Pyjamas, there's no need for a full article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Christensen is notable beyond his membership in NiP, as he was also involved SK Gaming's Counter-Strike team. If the article is too fawning, is should be revised rather than deleted. There are few articles on professional gamers and it, quite appropriately, has been limited to only the most notable of them. (That is, most of them are not notable at all, while the best are somewhat notable.) --Habap 19:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Christensen is "somewhat notable" at best? He easily flunks the WP:BIO test, the Johnathan Wendel article is at least supported by outside sources and media coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is referenced now. I would appreciate a re-evalutaion. --Habap 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look and the article certainly has been improved. Still, I'm not quite sure that the references provided are exactly what I'd consider "reliable sources". I'm going to say no vote for now in hopes that the article can be further improved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working to add in links to make this meet WP:V. WP:BIO doesn't have anything specific to electronic sports players (who some believe are inherently non-notable) and I don't know which test you're pointing out at the WP:BIO guideline. Thus far, the links I am finding are all within gaming websites, but I will continue looking and may be able to find something on a more mainstream site. --Habap 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After adding 10 links, I think it meets WP:V. I will endeavor to add a section that identifies his team victories with NiP, SK, NiP again, plus that all-star thing. In a sport with few long-term champions, Christensen has had success for the majority of the professional history. --Habap 20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep I'm not convinced of his notability, but at least some of the added sources meet WP:V now. JoshuaZ 00:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete into Ninjas in Pyjamas; failing that, just delete. No notability outside of the listed CS clan, and even as one of the more notable professional CS clans Ninjas in Pyjamas is not a high-profile enough subject to automatically make everyone associated with it an encyclopedic topic. Other assertions of notability above are unconvincing. --Aquillion 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as Habap. Comment: Most Wikipedia pages about people are flattering. After all, achievements are usually the grounds for notability unless the article is a dictator or serial killer. — Flooq (Talk) @ 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth L. Kuttler

Non notable professor. Fails WP:BIO. Peephole 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowball delete as obvious hoax. JDoorjam Talk 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: London Hijack

Article fails WP:N, WP:VAIN, and crystal ball. Tried speedy, tried prod, now this. Creator and only other editor (who may be the same person?) are involved with the film. -Merope 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sweet sassy molassy, delete Can this be speedied somehow? The article doesn't currently have any info besides cast and crew, but could any info possibly make this notable? FYI, the article's author removed the AfD tag, which I replaced. -- Kicking222 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wagon Confessions

Non-notable film by a student director. Was prodded but deprodded by what seems to be the director/producer. Vanity piece as its written by the writer/director of the film. Only one source offered. Looks like it won an award at a local film festival, but nothing spectucular stands out. Metros232 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nabu (game)

Very new (less than two weeks old at nomination) online game with, as the article states, 975 players, so not notable and probably unverifiable. Prod removed without addressing issues. ~Matticus TC 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just want to say it shouldn't be delete because: the last 3 days the player count raised steadily with each day 150+ new players, the game was in beta fase before this. We even got an article on digg.com about it so I see no reason why this information on how to getting started ingame should be removed.

I also got the permission of the author: Anshar who can be found at #nabu on Quakenet (IRC) to publish this information, he even encouraged me.

Btw, I edited the page and it still is a work in progress, I'll be adding new information to it daily.

Andrew Lenahan, it is a virtual world, you earn money by "sending spam" because you are a virtual hacker, there is no real spam ofcourse. Btw TheFarix, I don't advertise it, I just wrote a guide how you can play the game, I got no personal gain if you sign up for the game or not.

--Fre4k 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It reads very much like an advertisment. However, game guides are also not permited under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phygephilia

Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, and no reliable sources appear to exist to expand this into an article Xyzzyplugh 19:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki - An anon user removed the prod/prod2 here with no comment. Transwiki if it can be found anywhere else (not in dict.org or m-w.com) . — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shmanky

Neologism, looks like a term on a nn message board Wildthing61476 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Shmanky World? Clearly important. kp182st 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Vanity article, appears to have been written by subject. Has made exordinary claims like co-inventor of the WWW. Author has removed sources cricicism relating to implausable claims of compression algorithms [40] [41] [42] [43] and concerns over withholding evidence about tampering with votes through hacking of Diebold vote counting machines in the 2000 presedential elections. [44] [45]. Salix alba (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support this claim. As a mathematician I can say with full confidence that he is unremarkable. Looks the same as a "computer pioneer" and politician, though I am not an expert here. 81.17.146.136 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete page is being used as part of his 2006 election campain, and he links to it from the front page of his 2006 campain page http://piotrblass.com/ --Salix alba (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia community The attacks against my good name are politically and racially motivated.

Let me calmly respond: Jeff Fisher is a well known unstable person currently unfortunately homeless. His claim that I rigged the 2004 election is of course pure fantasy and as such needs immediate removal (Removed legal threat). Ryūlóng 01:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ulam Quarterly Journal pioneered the entire web movement in the USA. We were the eggheads who did it for free and for love. Give me credit and enjoy the web with my best wishes and my blessing

I cannot tell you about being an unremarkable mathematician. Please ask for example Zariski,Grothendieck,Mumford and Deligne Field's medallists or anyone of my students including for example Chris Skinner who went on to work with Andy Wiles or Scott Flansburg who went on to have thousands of students of his own. Finally I ask the community to protect me from defamatory attacks against me and my family. If you are unable to do it then indeed we need to part company today. Ulam Lives! dr piotr blass

Let me comment on the last part. We can't ask Zariski since he is dead. Mumford and Grothendieck are no longer working actively in mathematics, but neither is Piotr Blass of course (last paper dated 1996). I doubt Deligne uses email but certainly wouldn't bother him with this. Finally, according to Math.Genealogy Blass had a total of three grad students (neither of the two mentioned above) [46]. None of them had any students of their own. How about that. Mhym 16:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Delete. This is a vanity article written by the subject from scratch. Not notable as a mathematician by any stretch. Not notable as a politician (e.g. NYTimes does not list him among 2004 independent candidates). Mhym 07:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:VAIN as blatant self-promotion (he even mirrors this self-written article on himself on his own campaign website [47]!). Also an utterly embarrassing case of name-dropping (note also his recent edit to Adam Michnik.) No notability as a politician whatsoever (and the sheer lack of professionalism in this effort as well as the dumb campaign design do not promise great things for the future). If he is notable in the field of mathematics (on which I am no expert), he really should have the patience to wait until one of his colleagues or students writes an article about him. The keep vote by Piotrus ("seems (!) somewhat (!!) notable") appears to be somewhat sentimentally motivated, for a namesake and a (former) compatriot... 213.76.22.170 14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignoring for the sake of argument the blatant WP:VAIN violations, he has had a few papers published, and so the existence of an article might be borderline acceptable (note that I said borderline). But since it's all written by the subject, and he insists on putting ridiculous claims that border on vandalism (you and Al Gore should hang out together), it's just not worth the trouble. --Jaysweet 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Most comments refer to WP:VAIN, however, this guideline says "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is". According to Zentralblatt MATH, review 1028.14006, Piotr Blass did introduce the notion of Zariski surface, which is important enough that we have an article about it. If that had been all described in the article, then the article would clearly have been kept, showing that he's passed the notability threshold. By the way, an IP editor cleaned up the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I checked Mathematical Reviews. I found that of the 20+ collaborators Blass mentions one (Mark Levine) is a pianist, two more (Stan Klasa and Tim Ford) have indeed co-authored papers with him, while the others have not. The point being the whole paragraph is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst. It seems that the whole article is compromised with this kind of vanity issues. Even if Dr. Blass merits an article this one has to be deleted and someone with NPOV should write it from scratch. Mhym 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The attacks against my good name by two anonymous users

mhem and ryulong have been truly astounding. They seem to be rather young and I choose to forgive them and to ask them to sin no more. My mathematics speaks for itself and the theory os zariski surfaces which i created with zariski and hironaka has inspired top quality work all over the world---especially lately in Japan where Shimada has made great strides. Moreover the work is being generalized to higher dimesions as we speak with applications to cryptography and physics (parallell universes). Several papers in Compositio Mathematica and in Paris Academy Proceedings may be an indication that the mathematical beginners attacking me need to get a little more sophistication. I shall be happy to tutor them. Let us not have Cultural Revolution a la Mao in Wikipedia with hatred filled youngsters intimidating older faculty. As one of the pioneers of the web I wish Wikipedia well and shall continue to work with you Ulam Lives! dr piotr blass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.168.221.213 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: I just want to point out that accusing people of a racially-motivated Cultural Revolution-style crusade against you is not really helping your case. If Piotr Blass wants a Wikipedia entry on Piotr Blass, the best thing for him to do right now would be to back off and hope that somebody else creates an unbiased article. Even if everyone agreed that you were notable enough for inclusion, creating and/or editing an article about yourself is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Accusing people of a vendetta on the AfD page is arguably even worse. --Jaysweet 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I agree with most of Jay's points, I'd like to note that WP:AUTO only discourages, not prohibits writing autobios. I have seen fairly neutral autobios (this was not one, but has improved more towards neutrality), and even more edits by notable people who came to Wiki recently, found article about themselves and have no idea about WP:AUTO. Finally, please remember about WP:BITE: even if the newcomers are not aware of our policies, we should be and try to educate them to be civil.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you have references to back this up? --Salix alba (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is now a reference for this on the article page, however, the reference only states it is one of the first peer-reviewed electronic journals. Out of the four journals listed by the source as early peer-reviewed electronic journals, only the Ulam Quarterly is mentioned in Wikipedia -- and ironically, all of the other ones were more successful that UQ. The source does back up the claim somewhat, but simultaneously strikes a blow against the notability of the publication or Dr. Blass. --Jaysweet 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (Vote struc out as repeated vote by same IP address) I am so happy to see decent people come to the defense of my page and of the truth . The people attacking us are anonymous and not well informed. My friend and relative Emmanuel Ax is a pianist Mark Levine my collaborator and friend is a very strong geometer in Boston. The red guard type calls him a pianist! The primacy of the Ulam quurterly can be checked with Odlyzko who wrote about us before 1990 as one of the early models of electronic publishing .Reference will be supplied as soon as you stop blocking me or even sooner. Also the journal was typeset in or very close to einstein's office at IAS princeton. I can probably can testimony from there if necessary. Comments by ryulong and salix users are anonymous attempts at smearing us. Perhaps we should just ignore these attacks with so little integrity. As for the links added to my allegedly forging the 2004 election ---let us just laugh---were caused my mental patients. Perhaps it would be best to remove that . It is up to you. The Zeosync drama keeps unfloding. I am the one person trying to salavage this intellectual property---i am the good guy who gets criticed---- There is hope for wikipedia if we can talk at this level. My hero einstein was often criticised I am trying to imitate his dignity and good humor. love and all that stuff to wikipedia honest guys ulam lives!!!!!!!!!! piotrek blass— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.221.213 (talk • contribs)

  • Week delete Following Jitse Niesen I think there is enough to warrent sufficient notabliity. However I'm still voting delete as I am not convinced we can keep this page sufficiently objective. The page has improved somewhat but we still have not got to the root of how Ulam quarterly and the role it played in the development of the internet, was it just an early use, or did it effect the development of any of the protocols or browsers, or increase its popularity? Do we have any documentation about it? More concerning is the many mentions of Blass in a negative light, in conection with evidence he may have had about posible tampering of vote counting machines. There are many references to him in left-wing/democratic blogs, another recient one is Roger Rancourt, and there is even a signed afidavite which mentions his name (link escapes me). It seem like Blass is a contriversal figure at the moment and it may be simplest simply not to have an article, rather than an article which we cannot effectivly maintain.
  • p.s. As for my anominity, I'm not I have a user page with links just about all there is to know about me. As for anit-jewish motives, I had not even relalised that until Poitr mentioned it. It may actually be the case that the cricicism and attacks on external websites on Blass may be more to do with the fact that hes caught up in a situation which could damage the current govenment (and hence of interest to the left) than for any grounds of race. Still thats politics. --Salix alba (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a lot of name-dropping that still needs to be removed and unsourced material needs to be expunged also, per Wikipedia policy (WP:Verifiability). What will be left after all that is a bio with some basic background on family, education, etc., references to Zariski surface, and possibly the Zeosync stuff and political campaigning stuff. With all this other non-mathematical stuff, it seems there is enough notability (notoriety?) to establish a keep vote. However, I really have no wish to keep a bio that is mainly kept because of minor scandals of dubious notability or verifiability. Additionally, Blass' mathematical notability was marginal anyway; it's no real loss or gain to have this mathematician's bio or not. As others have commented, it may just be too much trouble. After all, don't we have better things to do than patrol this page with the goal of what, not improving the article (since there's not really much potential in it), but instead with the goal of keeping it trimmed down to a stub or semi-stub? That's really the problem with these marginal mathematician bios. Most of the time, people say "keep" because they don't see the harm in it, and there is some marginal notability. In this case, we have the subject insisting on spending his free time changing the article to his blog/webpage. It's really too much trouble to bother with, I would think.
  • One last comment to Piotr Blass: if Piotr Blass is reading this, I think he ought to know that he really does not want a Wikipedia bio. It's near certain that people are going to eventually edit out most of his additions to result in an article that, in his viewpoint, attacks his reputation and reflects badly on him. I really think if he understood this, he would vote "delete". --C S (Talk) 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP

LETTER TO JAY SWEET AND ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL

DEAR JAY SWEET I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MERITAS IS SCOUT'S HONOR I SHALL RESPOND TO ALL YOUR OTHER SUGGESTIONS A LITTLE LATER SINCE I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT. I HAVE TO BE FRANK WITH YOU I AM MORE PASSIONATE ABOUT THE WEB THAN PERHAPS ANY OF YOU GUYS HAVING BEEN IN ITS LABOR DELIVERY ROOM SINCE 1987 IT IS MY BABY AND I LOVE YOU GUYS MAKING GOOD USE OF IT.

NEVERTHELESS I DETECT CULT LIKE TENDENCIES IN THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA ALSO YOUR BOSS JIMBO HAS NOT HAD A GOOD START IN HIS WEB LIFE THAT HAS A DEFINITE EFFECT AS I SEE IT.

I CHOOSE NOT TO GIVE UP IF YOU GUYS DELETE ME THE WORLD WILL KNOW AND ULTIMATELY CHANGES WILL BE MADE EITHER IN YOUR GROUP OR AROUND YOUR GROUP THE WEB IS TOO PRECIOUS TO BECOME CULT LIKE.

THAT DOES NOT DENY YOUR FINE CHARACTER AND INTENTIONS PLEASE READ UP ON THE CULT DYNAMIC A BIT

I FEEL THAT IT IS AN HONOR FOR YOU TO HAVE MY PAGE IF YOU DELETE IT OR TRASH IT IT IS YOUR LOSS FINALLY JEFF FISHER IS NOT RELIABLE AND REPEATING HIS STUFF IS KIND OF..... 

SHALOM

ULAM LIVES

EINSTEIN LIVES I WILL BE HAPPY TO MENTOR YOU

YOU KNOW WHERE YOU CAN FIND ME

LOVE AND ALL THAT STUFF

DR PIOTREK BLASS

PS I HAVE A LETTER FROM EINSTEIN'S OLD OFFICE CONFIRMING THE PRIORITY OF THE ULAM QUARTERLY JOURNAL

YOU MAY CHECK WITH PIOTR KONIECZNY WHO HAS A COPY NOT FOR PUBLICATION


PEER REVIEW FROM ULAM PRODUCED HIGHER QUALITY THAN WIKIPEDIA IN MY OPINION PB

ALSO JEFF FISHERS CAMPAIGN MANAGER WROTE TO ME CALLING FISHER'S TALK BABBLE....

ENOUGH SAID


PLEASE SHARE WITH ALBIX AND RUOLONG PLUS ALL NEGATIVE GUYS

WHOEVER THESE GUYS ARE

THE TRUTH WINS IN THE END

PB

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaysweet"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.221.213 (talk • contribs)


To give some context here... I took some time the other day to try to explain to Dr. Blass on my talk page why his page has been marked for deletion. That is why he is addressing me here. (Though frankly Dr. Blass, you still seem to be very confused about proper Wikipedia policies, e.g. signing your posts with --~~~~, as I tried to explain to you...)
I said on the article talk page I might be convinced to change my vote if we could get a promise from Dr. Blass not to touch the article about himself. Based on his comments here, I don't think we will be getting that promise... --Jaysweet 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blass - I am of Jewish ancestry (from the former Soviet bloc) as well. That said, you are casting yourself in a very negative light - playing the race card, as it were, immediately after someone suggests deleting your page. You've already stated your keep vote, so there is no need to repeat yourself - your opinion has been noted, but it is not the end-all and be-all of the discussion here. As much as I hate to say it, you frankly lack the notablity to have a page on Wikipedia. May I suggest that you sign up for an account and create a User Page? Interested2 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Pblass2002 (talk · contribs). Interestingly this user(s?) stopped posting from his account and started using IP very quickly (the account doesn't seem to be blocked). PS. As I was mentioned above by the anon (presumably Piotr Blass) - I did ineed get get an email copy about this, but verifiablity of the email is rather low. The only ref I could find on G.Scholar was to show it was 'one of the first' journals - but nothing about THE first.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a real article here, just an enormous amount of random and unverifiable name-dropping. There are only 1460 Google hits for the name "Piotr Blass", most of which looks self-written [48]. Yes, he appears to have been a candidate in a Senatorial election, but it was only as an independent write-in candidate. Even CNN only had a minimal page on him [49]. And the self-written bio at piotrblass.com does not look like a "serious" bio to me, with claims like "true co-inventor of the world wide web." [50] There is insufficient verifiable notability here to justify a Wikipedia bio at this time. --Elonka 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, substantial recreation of article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt. Titoxd(?!?) 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Britt

this page has been recreated as fiction. this should be open and shut, fiction=gone

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "Redirects are cheap"™ Eluchil404 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadaigua

this disambiguation page's title is misspelled (the correct spelling is Canandaigua, for which a disambig. page already exists -- see Canandaigua, New York CPAScott 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criaca

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racuda

Fails WP:WEB Author removed prod. Non-notable website. Dipics 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred (SpongeBob SquarePants character)

This is a very minor character on the show. He's never even called by this name in the series. At best, he should be listed as part of a "Minor characters on SpongeBob SquarePants" page Konczewski 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If I recall correctly, there's something like 30 or 40 character designs which are used essentially as "extras" to fill crowd scenes, be customers at the Krusty Krab, etc. By their nature, none of them will ever have a significant role in the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the notes on "Krusty Krab Training Film" on the 3rd DVD collection, there are 150 stock background characters. Which I hope supports your point even more.Konczewski 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like this page?--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SpongeBob_SquarePants_characters All it's missing is poor old Fred.Konczewski 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back; he is listed there. He's the fish that says "My leg!" whenever there's a big accident.Konczewski 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGrigors

Spam advertising for a UK law firm. --Xrblsnggt 19:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psfights forum

Non-notable forum, claims of notabiliy cannot be verified. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. One of the 'keep' arguments says to take out the only thing which isn't or could be better covered at, say, social equality and related articles. As David points out, the deletion of this page does not prejudice against an actual article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equal access to justice

No original research,not for stuff made up one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. It's verifiable and expandable. It's not OR because information about the concept has been published. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form it seems to be a barely-disguised plug for Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, which itself looks to be an unsourced vanity page. Kickaha Ota 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Per this link, the Equal Access to Justice Act probably deserves an article but I'm not so sure about this one. -AED 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm with Ginkgo100, but take out the reference to Lopez unless it's verifiable, cited and in the context of the many other advocates. Bondegezou 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If at some point someone is prepared to write an article documenting the use of the phrase "equal access to justice", the loss of this material will not stop them. There is almost no semantic content beyond what the literal definition of the words might imply, and obviously no sources or assertions of notability. The current article seems to be a back-formation by someone with an interest in inserting material about Lopez (see this, especially), and combined with the poor writing (whatever "finer points of justice" might be, they are not something people would "access"), gives me no confidence the original editor has a firm grasp on whatever it is they are trying to report on. - David Oberst 03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by Crzrussian per CSD-A7. SynergeticMaggot 05:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Daines & Paul Killington

Note to closing admin: the original namespace this inhabited would not allow it to be correctly displayed on the AfD page, so I move the page to Maria Daines & Paul Killington and the AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Danes & Paul Killington. If the consensus is delete, please be aware that the Maria Daines/Paul Killington redirect should also be removed. My apologies for the additional effort this entails.--Isotope23 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article does not addert evidence of nobility per WP:MUSIC. Need commends on what to do with article. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't see anything that meets WP:MUSIC. Maria Danes has 1 album released on a minor indie label. All info I found about Paul Killington was in relation to the songs he has written for Maria Danes. There are some awards, etc that she apparently won, but nothing that would constitute a major music award. There is a contention of regional touring, but that does not qualify under WP:MUSIC. If kept this needs an obvious rewrite (no offense to the primary contributor who is obviously new at this) and should be moved to Maria Danes as the current name is not the conventional was of listing. Paul Killington could have brief mention as her songwriting collaborator, but I don't see anything that would come even close to qualifying him for a standalone article even if Maria Danes is kept.--Isotope23 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE !!!! Well, I can't see where you've disproven the factual basis of Maria Daines and Paul Killingtons existence as a major influence on the world in which we live through her music and humanitarian contributions that have made a positive impact on humanity and its behaviour in terms of all living things. So, who am I to stop you from recommending deletion...... I actually wish you would help to re-write the article, and perhaps format this page. It's obvious that you are far more proficient at editing and contributing than we are. So, please, go ahead and operate as you see fit !!!! By the way, Maria Daines and Paul Killington are very well known throughout the world. Perhaps, a bit more digging, and you shall find that Maria and Paul are REAL PEOPLE !!!!

Also, it would be a shame to remove Maria and paul from Wikipedia. I don't know how this place operates, but, if your statements are in fact a vote towards the uncertainty of their existence.....I am countering your opinion with my own, that they are true human beings with hearts as big as the universe.....

You vote no...I vote yes !!!! Now, I suppose we need only have one more person state their opinion, and vote to decide all of this....

In other words......PLEASE HELP !!!!! ;-)

Peace,

ZEST 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not questioning their existance, just their notability. Nowhere did we say anything about their existance. I am sorry if you thought we were saying that. If you want formatting help, I can tag this page for cleanup and get the help we need. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes... I second what No1lakersfan said. Nobody is suggesting that Maria Danes & Paul Killington don't exist or that they don't make music. Their existance is verifiable; Maria Dane's 1 album is sold on Amazon.com... I'm also not questioning their dedication to their craft or their dedication to humanitarian causes. The problem is that Wikipedia has guidelines for what musical acts are appropriate for articles. These guidelines can be found at this link: WP:MUSIC. If you feel they qualify for inclusion based on this criteria, please explain which criteria they meet (and include a link to a website or cite a print article from a reliable source, etc that would prove this. If this article survives this AfD (which takes about 5 days to complete), I will clean it up to conform to style standards.--Isotope23 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...O.K. then...if you want proof of their notability....I'll give you a few hints...Maria and Paul have been featured on the BBC Cambridge, and BBC Cornwall as recently as a few days ago !!!! They give live interviews, and discuss their music and plight to aid in making this planet a better place for us all. Also, Maria and Paul are up for an award for their song, I Am The Owner Of This Coat at an animal activist award ceremony that is to take place this year in Los Angeles, California, USA. Maria has received correspondence with regards to all her hard work from many people around the globe...as can be evidenced by the guestbook on her website. Maria and Paul are not signed to a major record label, however, what determines what a major music label is anymore. What with all the changes in the industry, even a web based band can rise to extreme noteriety without all the trappings of a major record label, and the ultimate position of poverty they have been responsible for of many artists around the world. I'll take small and independent labels over major labels anyday !!!! Now there's one for your WP:MUSIC article for updating and correlation of Major versus minor label distribution endearing itself to how noteable an artist is.... Hey, don't believe that Maria and Paul are noteable....check this out.... A google search that shows many, many pages of references to Maria and her great work and accomplishments that span many pages with no interruptions in reference to Maria Daines [52] I guess what I'msaying in reality is, just because an artist hasn't made the grade on the WP:MUSIC guidelines here at Wikipedia, doesn't mean they aren't noteable to many tens of thousands of people accross the planet.

Oh well...I suppose that being part of a UN department of information group that is NGO probably has no bearing on the situation either.... [53]

Alrighty, I have tried to make my case for Maria and Paul...Let the chips fall where they may.....But, please remember, being noteable by one standard, doesn't mean some one is not noteable by other standards....

Cheers,

ZEST 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have notified Maria and Paul of this discussion, I hope they get the message in time..... Perhaps, since you are so kind as to offer assitance, could you please contact them directly to help ???? maria@maria-daines.com

FURTHER TO THE DEBATE:

I would say that this case and my own - I was recently deleted - reveals Wikipedia's true colours. Wikipedia appears to be an elitist organisation of snobs who are more interested in what is mainstream media approved rather than talent, creativity or other work! In other words if you're a 'celeb' you are in and if you are not approved as this you are not!

Wikipedia is clearly more interested in red-tape and bureacracy and advancing the Orwellian nightmare fascist world.

Who makes these rulings as to who is a 'notable' person or band and who is not?

I was not 'notable' enough despite having had an EP out on a proper label (Crai Records), having worked with musicians such as Crum (ex-Hawkwind), Phil Moxham (Young Marble Giants), Robin Williamson (Incredible String Band) and Gruff Rhys (Super Furry Animals) and having compered and played at Glastonbury Festival and the Green Man Festival as well as having been rave reviewed in the NME were simply not good enough!

Faced with this sort of logic is it any wonder that musicians take matters into their own hands and promote their songs online or release their music on their own labels?

Maria and Paul have both been featured on national BBC radio so should qualify under the rulings here even if I don't and I hope to see their entry not deleted!

Steve Andrews aka Bard of Ely

  • Comment, Steve... read WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF. Calling Wikipedia an "elitist organisation of snobs" and "fascist" isn't really going to do much to convince people to take your arguments seriously. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as has some standards for inclusion (notably WP:MUSIC in this case). I'm very sorry if some editors determined that an article about you was not suitable for the project, but that doesn't really have any bearing on this particular article, or this discussion. Realistically speaking, whether or not this article survives will have absolutely no effect on the careers of Maria Danes & Paul Killington, or their ability to release their music.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanpo

Article reads as a how-to/advertising for a nn MMORPG. Wildthing61476 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The keep and delete sides seem to be ships passing in the night here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFD Magazine

A reader-written magazine. <200 unique Googles despite a repoted thirty-year history. Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Is interesting. I actually enjoyed reading that tidbit of knowledge. There is no advertising to be found in that article. Also, google is not the only search engine out there. I checked Yahoo and Ask.com, which have 516 hits, and 475 hits respectively. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I can understand why this was AfD'd, but don't let the amateurish website mislead you. RFD (the magazine, not the website) is nationally distributed, and has indeed been published for three decades now, and is considered both a pioneering publication and an influential one in the rural faerie/queer community. It's written for an audience that includes large numbers of people living "off the grid", so it's no surprise that it doesn't generate a lot of web chatter. Besides, I pulled up 1,740 ghits! Article should be expanded, not deleted. --Pagana 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or expand thoroughly! HawkerTyphoon 09:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GHits aside, the article itself does not assert sufficient notability. If provided, such info also needs citations to "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. --Satori Son 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's in the collection of many libraries including Harvard and University of California. I did a search at Worldcat, and found at least 80 libraries listed there with holdings (hard to get an exact total due to multiple places of publication). What was the methodology used to arrive at 200 unique Google hits? Like other people posting here, I get far more.--Larrybob 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dangerfields

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netroadshow

WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, prod contested by the spammer. Non-notable company, no assertion of relevance, original version was frank advertising and current version is only marginally less so. VoiceOfReason 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter, nothing to merge. Redirects are cheap and will hopefully stop people from trying to make a non-article here. - Bobet 10:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koeeaddi There

Firstly, this should be called "Koeeoaddi There" [54] but no matter. It is the first track on the Incredible String Band's second album. It was not released as a single. It is a pleasant song but it is not a notable song. The article itself is two lines long; I cannot envisage it being made much longer without extensive, autistic padding. "It is 4:44 long and starts in the key of D. It was recorded on 12 July 1968 at Studio One of Abbey Road in North London, England. The acoustic guitar was recorded with a Studer B12 microphone run through an Ampex compressing system" and so forth, except of course that this kind of information is unavailable because the Incredible String Band does not have a Mark Lewisohn. A google search returns two thousand computer-generated pages of lyrics and links to Amazon.com's page for the album. The song is a less popular Google result than a man's Flickr photo of some trees. Ashley Pomeroy 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McKinlay

non notable person's vanity page. only one google hit for the person whose location/birthdate matches. His own bio on this page says it all: "was born in December of 1982. Since then, Chris has not done much with his life" Ohconfucius 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was already Prod'ed, which would cause it to be deleted automatically in five days anyway. Why take it to AFD when no one has contested the Prod? AFD tag by anon (I assume the nom) got reverted. No AFD tag currently on the article. Fan-1967 21:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, I'm confused too. I was the one that reverted the AfD tag because there was no entry for it on AfD, plus I didn't expect one to be coming since anons can't complete the AfD process. The nominator has since restored the AfD tag. Metros232 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion or merge - remember that you don't need to go to AfD to do a merge, just go ahead and do it and redirect this article to the merge target. The fact that the outcome the nominator wants could be achieved without an AfD means that despite the low participation here, I don't see the point in relisting for further comment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Software Corporation

As discussed in the article, Onyx has just been acquired by a private company Made2Manage Systems, and will shortly be delisted from Nasdaq and become simply a division of Made2Manage. As a result, it no longer appears to satisfy WP:CORP, and should probably be either deleted or converted to a simple redirect to Made2Manage Systems. Kickaha Ota 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all (Liberatore, 2006). 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCU Prankcall Underground Radio

NN internet radio station. Also included in this nomination is Peanut Punch and Kdk. Fang Aili talk 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoes.com

Contest prod. I don't see how it meets WP:WEB. I would just like to get a community consensus for an action. Yanksox 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm still adding more information to the entry including a history of "free adult sites" and what the differences are and how hoes.com is a pioneer in the industry. As a matter of fact, hoes.com was one of the first "lists of links" in general. Well before most of the mainstream directories you see today including the popular Craigslist.com.

If hoes.com cannot stay, please let me know why most of the entries on this page are unaffected. Hoes.com actually has historical significance within the industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Erotica_websites

  • Can you please provide reliable sources containing information about the "historical significance" of this website? That in and of itself is one of the biggest problems with the article - it does not assert its importance and reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Additionally, you must prove that the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (The emphasized section is copy and pasted from WP:WEB.) Oh - and delete for the reasons listed above and in my statement. Srose (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, article does not provide info on subject that meets any of the three criteria in WP:WEB. --Satori Son 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XtremeWF

Fictional e-fed in a non-notable forum. I wanted to bring this to AfD for a consensus. Wildthing61476 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C/D/H

Non-notable company, advertisement — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable company, complete advertisement, essentially a copy of Conway, Dierking & Hillman, also marked for deletion, and is the only page that links to this one. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it does not meet WP:CORP standards. Allisonmontgomery69 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete C/D/H is a thought leader on IT issues in Michigan. Organization has published significant research, white papers, OP-ED pieces on IT issues.Leadingindicator5022 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I bet if we had an administrator check the archives, we'd see you wrote the article. While you can vote here, we have to assume your vote is somewhat biased. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would lose the bet. I didn't write the article, and you assume too much. I do admit to a bias. It is a bias of knowledge--I know this organization and the respect they have state-wide on IT issues. They are frequently quoted and written about in mainstream business publications. They do exist, they are credible experts on IT issues, and they have made serious contributions to the body of knowledge on IT matters. Why would we seek to deny them a place here?Leadingindicator5022 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all that you claim is true, why is it they're not mentioned in the pedia except by their mirror articles? And the reason I claimed you wrote the article is because the only contribution you've made to the 'pedia is opposing the deletion of this article (the history says that Alyssaallen created the article, but it's easy to create sockpuppets). I'm not saying it's not a real company, I'm just saying they haven't done anything important enough to have an article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Important enough" is a fairly subjective term. WP Corporate Standards are:

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

A competent online search will show that C/D/H clearly meets this standard. The article on C/D/H should stand. Leadingindicator5022 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conway, Dierking & Hillman

Non-notable company, advertisement — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was sent to WP:CP. As usual, anyone can make a new article at Talk:Giuseppe D/Temp. - Bobet 10:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe D

WP:COPYVIO http://www.hotheadprod.com/site/ Ohconfucius 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It does look like it needs organized. Clay4president 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebizdeal

Non-notable corporation. Entry appears to have been created simply for advertising purposes. Brian 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. That does not preclude any other editor from nominating this article again - but after a reasonable period, please. Kimchi.sg 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of successful automobiles

Thanks to Wairthu adding his blatant POV and his (Personal attack removed) like "This car is favored by little asian women everywhere" this article has become an atrocity to Wikipedia, and even another editer called it the worst article he had ever seen. I want this atrocity gone from wikipedia, (Personal attack removed) Karrmann 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article has no coherent thesis. It contains only abstruse and arbitrary POV selections of undefinedly "successful" automobiles, consisting of one individual's pet makes and models—straight POV, as it seems. It might be marginally appropriate as a "top ten" blog même, but it is most unencyclopædic. An article specifically and narrowly listing longest-running vehicle models or longest-running vehicle model names might be debatably less inappropriate. Either is arguably just as trivial and unworthy of Wikispace as the present article. NOTE TO KARMANN: I agree with you that racial slurs have no place in Wikipedia (except perhaps as illustrative examples in an article about racism), but your unnecessarily strident language is not helping your case or winning you allies. --Scheinwerfermann 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although not for the reasons given - a badly written article only desrves to be edited, not wiped out. The fundamental, unsurmountable problem with the article is that the only way to measure success without violating WP:NPOV is to measure sales, and the List of bestselling vehicle nameplates already exists (although it needs tidied as well). Any other measure of success would be a subjective review, not an encyclopedia article, and that's what this is.
  • Comment #3 ~ The above couldn't be more true and accurate :D I was actually about to raise the issue of the "Cult cars" category (not to mention my failed attempt to delete the "list of flops", which set a dangerous precedent for that all). Bravada, talk - 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, What constitutes a vehicle as a successful vehicle? It just plain doesn't make sense. Technically any car that sells enough to make the money back for R&D can be considered a success. I say this list is a waste of time. ren0talk 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #1 ~ Does nobody see what else I see? This list would be impossible to maintain as any car that sells at least enough to cover Research and development can be considered a successful car. I can understand the list of failures (note; Ford Pinto.) But this list would be entirely too hard to maintain and judging what cars are successful from what aren't would be damn near impossible. Hell, i'm sure some of the cars not on this list are considered successful (hence the reason they are still around) by their manufacturer. This list is a waste of time, whether there is Point of View or not. ren0talk 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As creator of this article, this is meant to measure success by longevity of the nameplate or niche, so this makes possible including long lived cars which might have a lower sales volume, such as the Nash/AMC ambassador. Also rather than just being a list, it has a short commentary on how a car might have earned, or paradoxically gotten such a status despite apparent defects. Most of the articles are sourced to citations that also say the automobile in question was notably a sales success. I continue to be apalled by the exclusionary and negative attitude of so many WP editors who have identified themselves above, and practiced the tactics I have highlighted on my user page as being distressing, especially deleting articles entirely. Deleting articles is usually because the article causes some sort of harm against an individual or party, that is certainly not the case here, and most of the entries are sourced. I am especially surprised by Karmann who contributed an especially low-quality article on the Taurus, which I upgraded in terms of facts and reduced POV, but was reverted. Karmann has since contributed only complaint tags, and now this undeserved AFD. I would encourage all involved to participate in refining the writing and adding other cars, not kicking it down. --matador300 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've offered to work with Wiarthurhu to see if we can get the article on better footing. I'm going to rewrite to remove POV but finding sources will be the key. Agne 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not voting on this AfD, but I did remove what I deemed to be personal attacks, as well as the excessive (and not customary) list of Wikipedia polices that were placed above this AfD. I feel the AfD as it is edited now (with the attacks edited out and the WP policies removed) should stand, with only new votes and discussion, not jockeying for position or debate between the nominator and the editor whose edits are in question. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I nominated this article is because of wairthu's POV. If it can be evened out, and Wairthu can stop from adding blatant POV to that article, then I will withdraw this AfD. Karrmann 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not for cleanup, nor to prove a point. I suggest you withdraw this nomination now, and allow for cleanup. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can clean up the article, and prove that Wairthu can keep from re adding his POV, then I will withdraw this nomination. I will prevent this article from being deleted until you are done cleaning it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrmann (talk • contribs)
First of all, sign your comments, please. Second of all, do not charge me with the mission of cleaning this article. If you have issues with it, edit it yourself. Third, how do you think you will "prevent this article from being deleted"? I think you fail to grasp basic Wikipedia procedure, and I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies on deletion and creating AfDs before you nominate an article again. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in my battle with Wairthu, he was all like "withdraw this AfD or I will put you on my black list", and kepts hassling me over withdrawing this. If I withdraw tis AfD, I am afraid that I will not hear the end of it from Wairthu. Karrmann 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for battles. Withdraw this nom, go to mediation, and don't disrupt Wikipedia. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I withdraw this?
  • Comment I do not have any interest in the "debate" between the nominator and the article creator. I agree that Mediation is probably the best route. I went through and did some POV rewrite. It's far from perfect but I'm hitting a road block with sources. Another issue that I'm seeing is with the name. How is a "Successful automobile" being defined? The original intro paragraph didn't lay out the definition in an objective, encyclopedic matter. I do think the article's editors need to better establish this parameter or else the article really has no where else to go. As for the AfD, I'm personally abstaining from voting. It's my opinion that the article still needs a lot of work but I do not know how interest the article editors are in going that path. Agne 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It started out as long-lived nameplate, and got changed. The current defintion is that the nameplate, or similar nameplates must last over 20 years, and be cited elsewhere as being conspicuously successful, preferably outside of WP, though an existing WP article will do. I would suggest changing it back to longest running to distinguish it from the similar, but slightly different list of bestselling cars. Might be a good idea to put a very short limit on summaries, the top selling article does have a few one-line comments. --matador300 01:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing inch

I tried to find references for this article, and came up empty. And it has been sitting with "no ref" for a while now. I suspect it might be made up. Algr 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fair approximation be "underscan", or "less overscan". But the main assertion is that someone used this in their marketing, and I don't see that. 17.255.241.102 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Murmurs. --Ezeu 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REDCAR

This is a page about a band that has just signed a record deal. It fails WP:MUSIC on almost all points, though two of the members were once in The Murmurs. That band qualifies easily, but does not really seem to have made it big, would just having a member from that band make REDCAR notable enough? Google presence is minimal, and the band's website is not up yet. As far as I'm concerned they have proved nothing yet, and they should have their own entry when they qualify more easily.Lomedae talk 22:21, August 2, 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Liberatore, 2006). 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSPML

The "homepage" for this piece of software is a a Yahoo site and has been removed. The editor has only made this entry to WP. Therefore it fails WP:SOFT, and when it was orginally posted would have failed WP:SPAM. Looks pretty nn to me so a firm delete.--Richhoncho 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Shorty McShorts' Shorts. Kimchi.sg 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Line for the shorts

Not a vote. Prod1 and Prod2 removed by an Ip address. Teke 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to STV by author. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STV.tv

Fails WP:WEB. It's just a website, doing what websites do. Offers no assertion of notability, such as being discussed in non-trivial works.See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abc1uk.co.uk, which is a similar new article about a website for a TV channel (although the latter is unofficial). The JPStalk to me 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete non notable/attack. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Henderson

Bogus entry. No online evidence of such a player having every played in any of the teams mentioned. noizyboy 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:Log/delete, it was db-bio'd beforehand. Since this AfD has thus far determined it to be an out and out fraud, I have added {{db-repost}} and {{db-bio}} to it... 68.39.174.238 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living for Death

Nonnotable book. See WP:BK Acyso 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Terminal

A webblog. I think it fails WP:WEB,no notability is established in the article. Alexa rating is very low, traffic seems to be in heavy decline over the years. Not a lot of views per posting as well. Delete, or merge into the blogger's main article.Lomedae talk 23:22, August 2, 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete — Fails to assert the importance of this blog. I got 984 google hits, which is not very many for a blog. Also I got 1,350 Yahoo hits, 960 MSN hits, and 837 Ask.com hits. The search terms were, "Brain Terminal" blog "Evan Coyne Maloney". If this blog is able to assert some notion of importance then I will be glad to change my stance. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rural India

Not notable Gamesmaster G-9 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, because there is no consensus to delete. - Richardcavell 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Point Public Library

I can't find any notability criterion for libraries, but having only 12 600 items (presumably not any rare documents or books) does not seem adequate for a library of note. Acyso 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Anchor Point, Alaska. The main article mentions that the library has only 1 employee. I have a sneaking suspicion that the creator is that employee. - Richfife 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the creator is not that employee, I'm a volunteer at the John Trigg Ester Library. I'm trying to create stubs for Alaska libraries, and then get back to them all and fill out the information on each library. It's taking a while. Just because a library is small doesn't seem to me to be a reason to delete the article about it. I'd say it's rather significant that such a small town (Anchor Point is NOT big) actually has a library. I'm working on two lists relating to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska: Alaska newspapers and periodicals, and Alaska libraries. I'll grant that it might be more appropriate to put this information under Anchor Point rather than as a separate article, depending on what I find out about the library. I also wouldn't bet that it has no rare documents—a lot of small libraries in Alaska have interesting tidbits from the early 1900s and earlier, town founders and whatnot having come up with the Russians or the gold stampeders. Deirdre 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I'm concerned that Wikipedia is full of projects that people start and then never finish (not to imply this is one of them), so this could set a bad precedent. Perhaps if you created the stub pages in your personal namespace (or in a Wiki of your own) and then moved them into the article namespace en masse when they're ready? Simply put a "User:Deirdre/" in front of them like so: User:Deirdre/Anchor_Point_Public_Library - Richfife 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something I knew how to do--thanks! I'll work on these stubs and try to get them out of the way pronto, but in future will follow your suggestion. Deirdre 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, why is it more notable than the thousands of other small town libraries out there? Wikipedia isn't a phonebook. - Richfife 02:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I think every small town (or large town for that matter) should have its own article for its library, its high school, etc. because they're all unique and interesting. I would love to be able to go to a Average Joe City page and read more than its population, percentage of minorities, and rough sketch of history but everything from high to low — and links to more in-depth articles...I'd love to see a Wikipedia with the quantity of a phonebook and the quality of an encyclopedia...Just my take on things. Jarfingle 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but... make sure you don't cross into WP:POINT territory - Richfife 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Online

Advertisement, copyright violation dealing with Digimon World 3. KL 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple family ring

No hits except WP on Google. It looks like a hoax and was tagged as such a few days ago. - Bootstoots 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go stick your head in a pig

Non-encyclopedic; mostly contains (copyrighted) lyrics; cannot hope to be an informative article that stands alone. I'd almost delete this outright... - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete from main space; I'll move to Wikipedia: as suggested by the last comment, removing the horrible remaining redirect. (Liberatore, 2006). 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFacts

Does not assert notability and its first link is to its own site. The other links first to http://distrowatch.com looks like just a blog, so it does not pass. The other one from "Novell Open PR blog," would not count because Novell is not a newspaper and blogs are not good enough sources for wikipedia. SuppleRed 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Empire

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 5,320,277. Peephole 01:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What does the Alexa rating have to do with anything? Solare Empire is hosted on who knows how many servers. The Trafic rating for the Quantum-star domain is 378,378 [55] - Notable enough yet? And that's just for one domain. 22:26 UTC - 4-Aug-2006 User:Moriarty

Keep: solar-empire.net just hosts the homepage portal, the majority of users visit the SourceForge project page and Quantum Star, the most popular distribution. Traffic Rank for quantum-star.com: 378,378 (up4,007). In January Solar Empire was ranked #6 on SourceForge in the category turn-based strategy games. --Mjac 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most probably mentioned at some point:

Solar Empire is one of the oldest PHP Games still in existence as a "living" project, with multiple forks and support (continual) from multiple developers. The front website is an informal developer meeting place. Of the official websites, Quantum Star Solar Empire has an Alexa ranking of 378,378.
The project (both SE and QS) have consistently been among the top 5 PHP Turn Based and Real Time Strategy Games on the Sourceforge.net site - the standard lookup point for open source projects in all programming languages. Activity has likewise consistently remained above 90%. These two points are a matter of public record. Statistics for all SF projects are available at their respective project listings. With QS (the most popular distribution since 2003), ranking on SF has never fallen below 15,000. Highest point was in May/June 2005 ranked 767. This is the ranking out of all projects on SF irrespective of language, genre, license, etc. The ranking is based on page views, downloads, development stats. It is a seasonal measure but the trend has improved consistently year on year. It's worth noting two SE games are listed - both with similar stats as separate projects. We jointly occupy 2 of the top-ten slots in our category genre most of the time...
Article was originally added by an otherwise unknown player. It was subsequently edited with the support of almost all the current developers and only after consultation with the original authors (none of which are developers). It has since been openly edited by numerous others, none of which have made major edits (our consultation paid off with no disputes evident).
The subsequent contributor did not make things up, if that's a concern. The facts in the article were checked (twice), the writer is a reputable source (a professional PHP and Web Application Security analyst with a Big 4 Chartered Accounting firm; on the role-call at Zend.com as an Article contributor for Devzone; web administrator for upstart Patterns For PHP). Author is also ranked as Guru on the PHP Developer Network forums as a daily contributor to the net's largest PHP Forums. Currently in the process of writing a book on PHP with several others - in fact he's an Administrator for that book project.
The QS blog which covers SE and QS in detail, along with PHP Game Development and PHP Security as topics has frequently been reported on by Zend's Devzone (the company behind the PHP language), Planet-PHP and PHPDeveloper.org - these are the primary PHP related news/blog/article reporting sites for PHP on the web. It's relatively difficult to get listed on these without proof of some professionalism in PHP and a flair for writing relevant, informed and interesting content.
Any specific issues, please free to expand upon them.--Regards, Pádraic Brady aka Maugrim The Reaper --Maugrimtr 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll just Copy + paste my comments from the talk page:

  • As stated in the artcile this game is now 7 years old. It's not something that only popped up a couple of days ago. It's likely amoung the oldest still-active PHP games out there.
  • It's had THOUSANDS (probably ten's of thousands) of unique users play it. Is that notable enough?
  • It's a fully formed article. If you want to delete something, may I suggest one of the many thousands of stubs that are lying around this place?
  • This article wasn't created by any of the developers (that I'm aware of). Look at the history. It was created by one "The King of Hearts". When we (the devs) found out about the article, we proceeded to update it and correct many the errors. These devs are specifically listed in the SE history as Maugrimtr, DJCapelis, mjac and Moriarty
  • Run a google for "Solar Empire". The top 8 results are all for this game, preceding even a TV series's IMDB entry of the same-name as well as the soon to be released "Sins of a Solar Empire" which comes in at ninth entry in the search.---22:09 UTC - 4-Aug-2006 User:Moriarty

Comment: Someone mentioned a possible WP:V violation due to the fact that it hasn't been reviewed in one of the gaming rags. While this may or may not be accurate it seems a bit silly, CVS logs are _much_ more verifiable than anything out of a new rag, or am I missing something?

CVS logs, near as I can tell (I am not a SourceForge junkie and therefore only have a vague understanding of what CVS logs even are), are either primary sources (e.g. statements made by the developers) or unreliable secondary sources (e.g. forum-esque posts). WP:V and its cohort WP:RS explicitly want reliable secondary sources, which do not appear to exist. Nifboy 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you guys changed the rules (WP editors)? The last header said this was a "notability" deletion thing and if you disagreed you could delete the header giving reasons (which is what I did). Now it's been changed and points here and says not to delete the header. I wish you folks would be consistant. This particlar debate is very one-sided as I don't see anyone giving any reasons FOR deletion (now that the notability thing has disappeared). -- 22:09 UTC - 4-Aug-2006 User:Moriarty

  • Weak delete. We have a metric ton of articles on various SourceForge game projects; Solar Empire is the 49th most downloaded in the "Turn-based games" category, right between Attal: Lords of Doom and VGA Planets, surrounded by Freelords, Project Xenocide, and Promisance. The 'Pedia is markedly inclusive towards commercial games, particularly since pretty much all console releases are guaranteed reviews in major media; OSS games, however, get virtually no press, and therefore are not nearly as verifiable. Since WP:V is hard policy, I'm going to lean in that direction unless 1up or Kotaku or somebody has an article and/or review on it. Nifboy 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed; vandal nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryulong (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 August 2006

Note: I have left User:DumbBOT listing this nomination as of today (13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)) so that this nom is not left orphaned around. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53651 (number)

Non-notable internet meme. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Iownapool 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2&oldid=1081094371"