Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 7 December 9 >

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 No consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderson (mathematician)

James Anderson (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Relates to the person responsible for today's Nullity coining and the Transreal_number deletion, see that entry/talk page for more details. Also vanity publisher and not suitable for a sourced encyclopedia. Lee-Jon 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been moved to James Anderson (computer scientist), the AfD notice persists there also and links to this discussion. fintler 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. He's a staff member in the computer science department at the University of Reading. (He's not a professor.) Maybe somehow somewhere he's got some interesting research, but it sure doesn't seem like it merits an encyclopedia article just yet. So far he seems just to have a bunch of papers in conference proceedings (which, to clear up some confusion, are not reviewed). His list of publications (at his home page and at the University) doesn't list his dissertation; who knows what he's a doctor of. See also the AFD for perspex machine. Lunch 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) doesn't qualify one for an encyclopedia article, IMHO. There are lots of "current events" and "ideas going 'round the internet" that don't merit an encyclopedia article. Lunch 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the term professor has a different meaning in the UK from the USA, so not being a professor does not automatically make a person non-notable. Markb 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but it does put him one step lower on the ladder.

      Also does anyone know where else in the news this fellow has appeared? That is, besides a one paragraph article in Slashdot and the article in the Berkshire local edition of the BBC. And on Slashdot, virtually all the comments are poking fun of the guy. Lunch 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: He is an "academic staff" member, which seems to be what the department is calling faculty. Conference proceedings are quite common in computer science and are perfectly respectable in some areas; you can't expect to translate your knowledge of credentials from some area of mathematics to a completely different field. Also, as pointed out, making "professor" is actually quite different (and harder) than at an American university; it really is a different kind of position. --C S (Talk) 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. - Stoph 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. --Soyweiser 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; one Slashdotted item of minor local news coverage isn't enough for WP:BIO. He has his own web site to explain his identity. --McGeddon 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His grants are neither plentiful or notable, his publications are not peer reviewed. This guy does not yet deserve an article. Carboneyes 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -Ahruman 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Alternatively, change (mathematician) to (Internet), and delete the redirect. There's no mathematics here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grandiose claims do not make a person notable. Fails WP:PROF but may pass WP:ICANSQUARETHECIRCLETOO!!!. shotwell 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN linas 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. TSO1D 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one mention in a news story does not confer notability. WP:PROF is the criterion which should apply here. -- The Anome 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. Narssarssuaq 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per nom, can't even use the WP:PROF as he doesn't qualify there!SkierRMH,07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some journalist just happened to believe he has solved something on the scale of Einstein or Newton. He has not. Any interest in this will go away soon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the interest goes away soon, delete after it has gone away, not before. Nothing worse than not being able to find at all in Wikipedia something that's all over the internet. maidden 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable. To reply some Keep: Wikipedia is not web space - Cate | Talk 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just the idea that this many people care to delete this article makes it notable, oh, and the media attention ;P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fintler (talk • contribs).
  • Keep The sources make their own argument for notability. Just because he may be known in history as a "one hit wonder" doesn't mean that one hit isn't notable. -Markeer 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Zé da Silva 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People asking for this to be deleted does not make it notable. This is not worthy of a bio. It may be in the future, but not yet (though I doubt it) JonGUK 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Recent papers published don't seem to be peer reviewed, and one bbc news arcicle does not a notable person make. Inner Earth 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Marginal, though in my view over the line, establishment of notability. That he is also a vanity publisher has no bearing on it -- might be noted in criticism section. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable bio stub. Abstrakt 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the news now, let's wait two years to see if his name has any recognition value Dr Zak 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "This is all over the internet" is not a reason to keep it here - it seems to me that this is exactly what the original research policy is there to prevent. --Dmz5 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to James Anderson (computer scientist), defer deletion depending on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number. If the other two pages stay then I guess this should as well, but lets call a spade a spade, this guys a computer scientist not a mathematician. --Salix alba (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN --RaiderAspect 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pierreback 14:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - WikiXan 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm still in favor of a delete, even if the proposed Wikinews article actually becomes published, and even if Perspex machine and Transreal number are kept, but I would move to amend Salix alba's proposal to "rename, substitute, and excise redirect". He is not and has never been a mathematician, as far as anyone can tell. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After careful consideration of related backlinks such as transreal number and perspex machine, I voted delete on those articles, from which I have to conclude that Anderson is just not notable (possible merits of his work notwithstanding). So what remains as a reason for keeping this bio? The only thing I can see of is some minor Internet notoriety due to Slashdot (the BBC thing is not so convincing, as it was in a local edition). But being mentioned on Slashdot once is a dubious kind of notoriety. No backlinks (other than the ones I mentioned) exist, so I doubt it's any loss to just delete. --C S (Talk) 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to James Anderson (computer scientist) He is in no way shapre or form a mathematician. His training is in CS. I'd say redirect "Perspex machine" here and keep this article stating that "James Anderson is a math crackpot who asserts that a flawed version of NaN has major mathematical consequences." Alternaticely, create a "Mathematical crackpots" article which talks about the phenomenon and lists several "notable" ones; redirecting all articles to that one. Perspex & Anderson are not notable for scientific merits but they are notable as well know parts of the cultural phenomenon of mathematics crackpotery. JeffBurdges 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep marginal and rename to his actual job. not quite notable as a working academic biographical article, not quite notable as a crackpot, but together the two add up to more than nullity. there is a notable lesson here for academia--Mongreilf 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His training isn't even in CS, he's a psychology major. Jgrahamc 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Delete, largely per The Anome. WMMartin 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if just out of sympathy for him after reading the comments on the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml? There 98% of the comments demonstrated beyond doubt the writer had neither read Anderson’s paper, nor had the slightest clue as to the nature of axiomatic systems, that is, of mathematics itself. Whether Anderson’s definition of "nullity" is a truly useful improvement on IEEE’s “NaN” logic, is an open question – I don’t know. It is, however, a consistent axiomatic system, every bit as logical as anything else in mathematics. I don’t want him shut down by “truthyness” police lacking a clue about mathematics, but knowing that you "can't divide by zero" is the only true religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.34 (talk)
    • i'm not sure if it is a consistent axiomatic system. it may be, he claims it's been tested, but it hasn't been through the peer review process. it's now going through the review by internet process--Mongreilf 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that no-one above has actually said anything of the kind, that is a straw man argument. You appear to be conflating this discussion with the BBC web site. The issue being discussed here is whether this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per above comment. For some reason people seem to be personally attacking him. It doesn't seem that anyone has come up with anything proving him wrong, they just seem to want to call him a crackpot for no real reason other than to retain their own elitist/purity view of mathematics. fintler 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to changing my mind, but I don't see how he meets criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Is there some other guideline you'd suggest? Lunch 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the article for a new citation that goes towards satisfying WP:BIO. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a local BBC program. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or if you're referring to the Reading Evening Post article, that comes from a newspaper with "a circulation of about 18,400" according to the Wikipedia article Reading Evening Post. Still local. Lunch 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The circulation is irrelevant. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. We don't, for example, exclude articles on obscure species of beetles just because only a few entomologists read the scientific journal articles that discuss them. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think anyone else agrees with you on this issue. Even so, your view is not specifically even up to the guideline level. Also, does this mean I would have been notable in 1975 because I was interviewed (for about 30 seconds each) on two local television stations (if they archived their news footage then, so we'd be able to verify). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:BIO agrees with me. It draws no line that delineates "local articles that don't count" as you are doing, and rightly so. There's a great deal of systemic bias that flows from such a notion. It is your "It's local, so it doesn't count." that people don't agree with. And the answer to your question is "No.", because, unlike you with those 30 seconds of interview, James Anderson has been the subject of several articles all of which comprise more than just a single paragraph. The PNC requires "non-trivial" published works, remember. "It's local." is not a valid rebuttal. The valid rebuttals would be that the published works were not from independent sources (e.g. they are re-hashes of press releases), that they were trivial (i.e. are not in-depth coverage), or that there was in fact no more than one single piece. Until yesterday, there was no more than the one single piece. That is no longer the case. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 199.212.18.131 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has other articles on frauds, like Sollog; it doesn't mean that we endorse their ideas. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that keeping entails endorsing ideas. People are saying he is just not so notable. Sollog appears to me to be much better known than James Anderson (mathematician). --C S (Talk) 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's had multiple articles written about him in the BBC. His pseudomath is not notable, but the media frenzy he's created around himself is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are local (Berkshire) BBC articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you feel that local news coverage is sufficient for notability, fine, that's your opinion and obviously I can't change it. But if you are suggesting that somehow there's been major international (or even national) coverage on this man, you are grossly mistaken. If the BBC decides to pick this up as a national story, then I would be forced to agree there has been indeed a "media frenzy". --C S (Talk) 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are wrong to exclude published works just because they are not widely read. We don't do that for small towns or for obscure species of beetles, and we don't do it for people. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. If you could make a case that the published works are not from independent sources, or that they are not in-depth, or that there were not multiple works, then you would have a good argument. But you have not made such a case. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ungle G, as you may have guessed, I don't abide by your PNC. Notability has to do with importance/usefulness in my opinion, and in that way serves a constructive function. Your guideline is basically set up so that some Little League coach that gets local news coverage about rescuing a cat from a tree gets a Wikipedia bio. How does that further Wikipedia's mission? Nobody here is arguing that obscure species of beetles should not be covered, so you may want to consider why not in order to understand the nuances of the position being held here. --C S (Talk) 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion is wrong, and it is you that needs to consider and understand what notability and the PNC actually are. Importance is subjective. Notability is not subjective. Editors' personal evaluations of importance, including yours, are not the way to decide what to include in an encyclopaedia. Doing so would result in a mess very quickly, and basing your arguments upon your subjective opinion of what is important does not help Wikipedia at all.

      Moreover, your argument about rescuing cats from trees is a straw man. You are ignoring the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" in the PNC. The rescue of a cat from a tree would almost certainly not be an in-depth article, and other articles would be required. Please think about notability, about why it is not the same as importance, and about why arguments about cat rescues are straw men. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of whether my opinion is wrong and yours is right. And no, I didn't ignore the wording in your PNC. I say "your PNC", because despite your attempt to make it seem like your opinion is policy or a major guideline, it is not. If you are referring to the first bullet of a list in WP:BIO, then note that also part of the guideline is "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." (my emphasis) Not to mention that the guideline also states that this is not an exclusionary list, so it's not as if your PNC was not met, the article should be deleted. Insisting that "keep" and "delete" correspond to satisfying or not satisfying PNC is just your opinion; don't pretend otherwise.
        "Multiple" obviously means "more than one" and "non-trivial", interpreted by you here as "in-depth", can obviously happen in any human interest story such as the one I mention. So it's not a straw man, but a valid example. For example, please look at Cat Rescued From Tree] and explain why it is not "in-depth". In terms of "multiple", i.e. more than one, with Anderson, I see two independent sources, the local BBC station and the Reading Evening Post. The only aspect of your arguments so far, that I can see is valid is that here we have more coverage than in the "cat in tree" case. "more coverage" here means one more source. But I would think this is a pretty borderline case. If you're going to say "here we have two sources, whereas you have only one". Then that's a weak argument, in my opinion. --C S (Talk) 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, I do not consider that Wikinews story a reliable source here, especially for notability purposes. --C S (Talk) 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If indeed James Anderson's is a crackpot, why not keep the article but specify the holes in his theories? That might provide useful information to anyone else trying to develop similar ideas. He passes notability by merit of the ongoing public discussion. Oneismany 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Oneismany. —Ben FrantzDale 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites at least three published works (2 news articles by the BBC and 1 by the Reading Evening Post) from independent sources that talk about, in depth, this person and xyr presentation of xyr "nullity" idea to schoolchildren. The Wikinews story, documenting the ensuing reaction, is a fourth. The WP:BIO criteria, in particular the PNC, are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Heidnische Gemeinschaft. Article has been replaced with a redirect; the content for merging is available in the history. —Doug Bell talk 10:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Géza von Neményi

Géza von Neményi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - fails WP:BIO, WP:V Frater Xyzzy 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the German article. One of the sources is the subject's one doesn't work, and the third http://www.tivar.de is of somewhaty dubious nature. The three books on the other hand are real and do appear on Amazon. I am not sure if that in itself constitutes notability, though considering the lack of independent sources discussing her work. TSO1D 02:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete and salt the earth by Alkivar. MaxSem 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy (Ru) Klein

Rudy (Ru) Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article, being about high school athletics, is not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Jackhorkheimer 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. TSO1D 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor UK and Ireland series 4

Page contains no useful content, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Cider

Brothers Cider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines of WP:CORP. Advertisement. -Nv8200p talk 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite: Easily meets the guidelines of WP:CORP through this article in the UK Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph Article on Brothers Cider together with honourable mentions by BBC and Manchester Online. Does need a rewrite to NPOV though.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wrote this article but i'm hardly an expert writer so it needs someone to have a go at this. I dont work for the company of any of its subsiduary or anyhting and didnt mean this to be advertising. It's just as worthy of a page as Magners is. While it needs a rewrite to remove my bad prose it certainly meets the notability criteria. --Mercifull 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. The additional sources are pretty trivial, nothing substantial enough to base an article on it. -- Chondrite 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i guess it's just unfortuinate that there are very limited online sourced to cite for you. I wasn't aware that something could only be notable for an article if it had a massive online prescence no matter how many times its been on regional TV stations or newspapers and how many festivals it sponsors. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that sources be online, just that they are reliable, verifiable, independent of the company itself, and coverage is not trival. The idea is that there needs to be enough independent coverage of the company to support a proper article. If the company sponsors festivals, then that should be mentioned at the festival article(s), and can be included in this article (if kept), but it doesn't establish notability under WP:CORP. -- Chondrite 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Paul

Marc Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Autobiography. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added references. If you are suspicious about an article which claims that its subject has appeared on television, check on http://www.imdb.com/ , which in this case confirmed at least some of the claims. --TruthbringerToronto

(Talk | contribs) 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown (8mm Fuzz)

Strong Delete A member of a band whose article has already been deleted....Yeah. Just H 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Druids in Ireland

The Order of Druids in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This advert for a newage religious group (which is "neither pagan nor wiccan but Irish") is formed of equal parts original research and conflict of interest, with a heaping scoop of complete bollocks. Recreated after speedy-deletion, then PRODded, so let's do this officially. ➥the Epopt 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkierRMH,08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete without prejudice towards recreation if a) notability can be established; and b) reliable sources can be provided. (For example, the statement "OzLabs is notable for being one of the first commercial labs setup to work on Linux and Linux support, and also as being the largest and most respected collection of Free Software developers in Australia." needs to be cited to an independent reliable source making this claim.) —Doug Bell talk 10:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozlabs

Ozlabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable vanity. Having been a part of Ozlabs for about a year, it seems easier to AfD than to add my name. This is one of many deparments within IBM; the company has tens of thousands of deparments, and thousands of brilliant engineers, many more notable and acheived than the folks listed here. Most Harvard professors or the depts they're in don't rank an article on WP; I don't see the point of starting to list rank-n-file corporate employees. Since I work with many of these people here, sorry, my apologies in advance, but WP is not the place for this. linas 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Why is wikipedia not the place for this? Wikipedia has become a general reference point. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. The OzLabs team in Canberra is a significant entity in the Australian Open Source Development community. I agree the article could do with more detail, and more explanation of the team's place in the Australian, and global open source development community. --CatS 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would support keeping it if it was responsible for significant breakthroughs in computer science. The article does not give any examples of things that would make it notable. Google News Archive confirms that it is an IBM Linux Laboratory but neither article establishes notability in my view. [1]

Capitalistroadster 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ozlabs is the largest and most notable collection of Free Software developers in Australia. Linas' assertion that he's "been a part of Ozlabs" indicates that the article is not as clear as it should be.

--Rusty 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman:aracniphobia

Spiderman:aracniphobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Can't find any data on the subject. Looks to be either fancruft oif not original research. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-man 1995 live action show

Spider-man 1995 live action show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Article provides no sources for what looks to be a non-notable, chancelled program. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul squad (band)

Soul squad (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Article is horribly written and seems to discuss a non-notable musicial group. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moisés Espírito Santo

Moisés Espírito Santo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This one has WP:COI all over it. First copied directly from the Portuguese Wikipedia as a never-ending WP:COI resumé and thus deleted under WP:CSD#A2. One week later, recreated by a sockpuppet and deleted again. Now it's back (brought by yet another sock), with most of the resumé gone and a small biography written in English. No reference to the contributions that made this professor "very influential". Also poor sources, original research, and did I mention WP:COI? Húsönd 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be vanity and essentially a resume, doesn't sufficiently establish notability and uses unjustified POV terms. Terribly formatted and badly translated, too. --The Way 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's not up for AfD on the Portuguese WP, I think they'd know if he's non-notable. (yeah, I know, WP:INN, but they're just as hip on deleting non-notables as here). Also, since when has an article being poorly written in English been a reason for deletion? He certainly seems to have a good number of published books and articles to his credit. Tubezone 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Portuguese Wikipedia is far less efficient than the English Wikipedia. It can be months until somebody notices the article there or even bother to do something about it. The poor English is the least of the concerns here btw.--Húsönd 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like they have about 20 AfD's per day, which is about proportional to the number of articles they have (1/8 that of the English WP), but that's really neither here nor there, I can read enough Portuguese to tell you it looks like the guy's written a number of textbooks, including a 10,000 word Phoenician - Portuguese dictionary and a 535 page textbook on 5000 Years Of Western Culture. Looks like he edits a magazine at the New University of Lisbon, too. (I got that off the University's web site) If this article was referenced properly in English, I have little doubt it'd be obvious he passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF.
If he's an important professor then obviously he has done a lot of work, publications, etc. That does not grant notability per se though, and furthermore the article lacks references as you say and it would require full rewritting to be kept.--Húsönd 05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voce pode ler o portugues melhor que eu! It looks to me that if a US professor had that much stuff on his CV, he'd be a shoo-in per WP:PROF, there's nothing in WP:PROF that says the publications have to be in English, or the citations, or that the article needs to be well written. I'm not sure I buy the WP:COI argument either, why would you think he wrote this himself? If you think he's non-notable, why haven't you PPE'd him on the PT WP? I think that'd be a no-brainer, if he had been determined to be NN in the Portuguese WP, an AfD here would be a gimme. Tubezone 07:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sim, posso ler o português e todo ele me diz conflito de interesse. It seems obvious that either the professor himself, or someone very enthusiastic about him would write and recreate this article so avidly. Have you seen many WP:COI articles lately? Regarding the Portuguese Wikipedia, it's a sister project but we don't abid by each other's decisions. We have different policies and something being included in one doesn't grant inclusion in the other per se. Besides, the Portuguese Wikipedia doesn't function as effectively as the English Wikipedia. Bad stuff can be kept there for ages until someone even cares about it. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I left the project.--Húsönd 15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a thought, I've been looking for um razao practicar o portugues. I'll probably be the laughingstock of every university from the Pantanal to Porto, but the question of whether this fellow is notable or not would get uma resposta definida. Tubezone 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has written multiple books and articles. Passes WP:PROF. --Oakshade 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, currently it does not. No sources confirm the guideline criteria that establish that his academic work is "significant or well-known".--Húsönd 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's published 16 books in Portuguese, a number of which have had multiple printings (unless you are saying what's on his article in the PT WP is inaccurate or a hoax?), and it looks like several are university textbooks (which would qualify him per WP:PROF). Really, this fellow looks at least as notable as Rodryg Dunin, who survived an AfD not too long ago. Tubezone 09:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not disputing that he's published what he says he did. But the article on the English Wikipedia is just a WP:COI pool, and if all the conflict of interest were removed, we'd be left with a stub that lacked sources and asserted no notability. Furthermore, the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia does not state what sort of books are those. It's very common for university professors in Portugal to publish or co-publish a lot of work that in the end has little impact. Only good sources documenting his work would suffice to prove any notability. I should once again remind of WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:RS, Wikipedia policies that I presented as reason for deletion and who aren't being contested.--Húsönd 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I certainly think foreign language sources can be used to support notability, but I am concerned when there appear to be no English language sources. --Kubigula (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any english-language sources of his work either, and articles created by editors contributing a single page are always suspicious. DrKiernan 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports culture albums

List of sports culture albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A list of compilation albums containing music popular at sporting events. Most are red links. With generic bargain-bin themed compilation albums probably numbering in the thousands, there's really no reason why they would be notable; furthermore, "sports culture albums" is a phrase with zero non-Wikipedia Google hits. We are much better served by the existing Category:Songs popular at sporting events and List of songs that might be heard at sporting events. Unint 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Best of" or "Greatest hits" albums with punned/modified names

List of "Best of" or "Greatest hits" albums with punned/modified names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

List of greatest hits albums with puns on or jokey variations of phrases like "greatest hits" or "best of" in the title. Depending on how narrowly or widely you interpret the concept, however, just about any title deviating from the "Best of Band X" template could potentially be (and some of which already having been) included here, and that's far too many for this to be useful. Unint 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alex Bakharev 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Brunner

Jennifer Brunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I deleted this, and am now submitting this to AfD as per a request on my talk page. This is CAT:CSD related. No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:SK says that an article can be speedy kept if: "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." I think that applies here. Everyone has voted Keep, and Eagle said "No Stance" so it looks to me like we're in SK territory. Can we please Speedy Keep now? — coelacan talk — 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
Alex Bakharev 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of hidden messages

List of hidden messages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article seems to want to list every secret message, of any nature, ever placed into any media of any kind. Already we have backwards strings of text in videogames, morse code messages in songs (would that be a coded message or a secret message?), really hard-to-hear bits in songs, and one-off jokes from individual episodes of television series.

But there's a lot more untapped potential here too. We could rightfully include every easter egg that contains a secret message (eeggs.com lists thousands of potential items]), every computer game that uses secret messages as clues (most adventure games), every film with a joke that plays after the credits, every hidden track on an album, the entire field of cryptology, The Ring, The Da Vinci Code, the list goes on. Imagine the size of the references section alone when it's all done. Unint 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Whomped. WP:CSD criterion A7 applies. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whompa

Whompa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Whompa Labs Inc. yields zero results, as does Whompa Labs. Whompa skateboard brings 63 hits. The top page is YouTube, MySpace, MySpace, blog, blog, blog, wiki, wiki. Consequentially 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while Whompa is a company per-se, they do not advertise their brand name commercially in any way. This page was never intended to serve as an advertisement, it was merely a factual record of the skateboarding organization. I apologize if it was taken any other way, I will attempt to rewrite the article as soon as possible and eliminate all promotional material. Whompacats 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied as a non-notable organization. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Whompa is a prominent skateboarding group in Half Moon Bay. A record of the skate team is a neccesity for the town. The article should not be viewed as an advertisement for the company, but simply an informative written record of the history, goals, and beleifs of the Whompa crew. — 24.6.145.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy delete as WP:VSCA and/or failure to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Whompa is in fact a small organization of young Coast Side locals that are in the process of gaining notoriety among high end skateboarding Companies such as E.L.F. and Es. For one to say it is a non-notable organization is understandable, but to say so without knowledge of the area is something else entirely. — Saltdawg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy delete per MER-C above. A special note to those who are part of the group and in particular Whompacats, notability must be established from other sources. If you're looking to get yourself out there, try a web host such as Angelfire or Geocities. This ain't it. --Dennisthe2 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a production of up-and-coming youths who are actually making a steady rise in local notoriety. They will soon attain the fame required to be "notable", so I see no reason to delete this. Besides, this is an innocent attempt at showing pride for someone's area. This extends to the whole Bay Area Coast, so I believe this would classify it as significant.--Yasuna 06:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have articles about things because they may be famous in the future, we write about them for what they have now. Fame has nothing to do with it; there are simply no reliable sources to write an article on some local skate group. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "They will soon attain the fame required to be "notable"." Good for them. When they actually attain the fame needed to be notable than an article can be created for them. Until that happens, no article. Otto4711 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree it should have been a speedy; "will soon attain", sounds like Crystalballin' to me... SkierRMH,08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headford International Airport

Headford International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-existent place; no references to it on Google or the site of any Irish airport authority. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. It does not appear to be blatant nonsense to me, perhaps some more careful consideration? Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The place doesn't exist. There are airports in County Galway, but this isn't one of them. The edit history suggests that the text may have been partially lifted from Kerry Airport, since there are edits removing references to that. The listed airport codes are invalid; one doesn't exist and the other is assigned to a municipal airport in the United States. Sorry for putting it in the wrong AFD category. Dppowell 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUEshi

LUEshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Before we get this thing started, let me iterate that I am a member of both LUE and LUElinks, the central locations of the meme. Now, I clearly realize there have been previous decisions to keep this article. However, those decisions almost entirely ignored the rule and guideline violations, most of which it cannot live up to. This nomination is not of bad faith.

The article violates the following policies and guidelines:

I quote: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." - now, there are no reliable sources for this article and I don't believe there are any in existence. Due to the fact its main presence is on a private board, it's very unlikely for a source to publish any information on it. The "GameFAQs archive" is barely reliable, I don't believe it is. It a list of topics submitted by users, which means anything could easily have been modified.
The only thing that can possibly be verified is its origin (the source isn't very reliable either) and its existence. This isn't fact, but it is shown with the article's great lack of references.
Quote: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The article does not have any references showing this, and based on my research, I cannot find any.

I assure you there are a few more guidelines the article violates, but I believe this is enough to convince deletion. I have gathered a list of things that the ASCII art claims notability for, and rebuttals:

  • Signed by Shigeru Miyamoto
This was simply because a person asked him to - Miyamoto would likely sign my arm if I asked him to, that doesn't make my hand notable for an article.
  • Popular on the GameFAQs message boards
Unfortunately, for the purposes of WP:NOR, it's not, since it seems only to be popular on "Life, Universe and Everything", a private message board on GameFAQs - its popularity therefore cannot be confirmed. I invite you to give a reliable source that asserts its popularity.
  • Interesting/I like it/Why not?
These are not reasons to keep an article. Observe the policies and guidelines to give a valid argument.
  • [this meme] was kept on Wikipedia! Why can't this stay?
That's a different situation. The meme has most likely been more popular, or is able to be researched without violating WP:NOR. Regardless, if you believe that article should go, you're free to nominate it.
  • The previous consensuses were to keep
The previous consensuses were also rather ill-founded. I have taken the liberty to give the violations and provide rebuttals to arguments. These rules weren't even argued against in the previous nominations, leading to a simple battle of votes, not consensus.

I remind everyone not to blindly vote. The result is decided with consensus, not vote amount, so don't waste your time if you have no argument. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and discussion

  • Delete and redirect to GameFAQs. Honestly, I'd been considering nominating this again myself for a while. Simply put, this is yet another example of unverifiable internet stuff that's been kept around due to a lot of WP:ILIKEIT, meatpuppetry, and other such nonsense. The only sources here are archived GameFAQs message board posts, which are far from reliable sources. Any claims to notability need to be backed up with verifiable information from reliable sources, and there really isn't any in this case.
    Meanwhile, note that the second-to-last AfD ended with a suggestion for a merge to GameFAQs message boards, which never materialized. That article has since been merged into the main GameFAQs article itself, which is a sign that all of the GameFAQs-related stuff should be confined to a single article.
    Finally, the last AfD was speedy kept as a bad-faith nom, "citing the GNAA clause". Of course, the GNAA article itself has now been deleted due to WP:V concerns, so it's now safe to say that there isn't really any kind of policy exemption given to repeatedly-nominated articles. WarpstarRider 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the verifiability policy: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Reliable sources" refers to actual published sources; "GameFAQs staff members" do not qualify.
      "Someone might want to look this up" is also not a valid reason for having an article here; you could insert just about anything into that hypothetical. And anyway, if one were to look up "LUEshi" in such a situation, they'd be redirected to the GameFAQs article. Then they could scroll down to the "Message boards" section, where LUEshi is mentioned under the "Life, the Universe, and Everything" heading.
      And I don't see any previous AfDs started by the nominator of this one. What are you talking about? WarpstarRider 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a personal feud against "LUE and its descendants", in fact I enjoy going there. None of the previous AfDs were my work - where are you getting this from!? If someone gets a forum invasion with a ton of ASCII-art renditions of my arm, does that mean we need an article on it? No, not really. It's a terrible analogy, I know, but it works. A GameFAQs staff member verifying it is called "original research" and is against the primary policies of Wikipedia. I'd advise you to read these, they're the basis for the deletion. Sure, a "million people" don't know about anything, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia needs sources and verifiability, and articles that cannot achieve this do not belong. I have nothing against LUEshi, in fact it's pretty funny sometimes. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I really don't understand why members of LUE can't differentiate between the two. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the 7th nomination to delete this article. Give it up. - The Norse 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. TEG, unless you can somehow prove that people are being lured here to serve as blind voters, please don't throw around the accusation. You cherry-picked WP:WEB, which gives three criteria, and only one of them needs to be met. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Given that this is simply a meme, "distributed" could reasonably be interpreted to mean that an explanation, as well as the ASCII itself, are present on the site. A quick google search shows Urbandictionary, encyclopediadramatica, and YTMND all on the first page, with YTMND having 43 hits for "LUEshi" and the other two having articles.

Additionally, LUEshi is being used as a mascot, not just as the ASCII. The Urban Dead wiki has an article about a group called "LUEshi's Undead" (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Lueshi's_Undead&printable=yes). CafePress offers a LUEshi shirt (www.cafepress.com/buy/andrea/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.11085364/pNo_11085364/id_4397428/opt_/fpt_/c_360/). LUEshi is (admittedly slowly) spreading across the internet due to the actions of LUEsers, has reached a variety of sites, has links to archived topics off GameFAQs (including his creation); what more is really needed? Just because you don't like the GameFAQs archive doesn't mean it isn't a valid source, with fictional entries removed when they are noticed, which is essentially the same system of peer review that Wikipedia itself uses.Alternator 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You've voted a strong keep and yet you've simply ignored the policy violations. As well as that, every single site you've listed is user-created. Urbandictionary, ed, YTMND, Urban Dead, Cafe Press. They're all user-edited sites. None of them are reliable sources, and all articles need reliable sources. There simply aren't any, and you're foolish to ignore that. Really, I'm trying extremely hard to control my anger. You're throwing false accusations and ignoring points all over the place. "What more is really needed"? A RELIABLE SOURCE. "LUEshi is spreading accross the internet"? You'll need a source for that. "you don't like the GameFAQs archive"? Actually, I like it. The problem is that it is user-submitted material, meaning it is not a reliable source. You cannot ignore this. Your argument is so lacking in logic it's not funny. Next time try making a relevant argument to the WP:WEB guideline, and the two policies that you plainly ignored. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to that, I think you misunderstood the thing you quoted in WP:WEB. If you'll read the footnote, it's clear that user-created material is not fulfilling the criteria. Because of this, it does not pass WP:WEB. May I ask, why do you want the LUEshi article? It breaks rules, and you know it. Don't deny it. There must be some reason for it, I'm assuming it has something to do with LUE's fame. I realize I'm swaying into bad conduct here, but when only LUE members are keeping, it simply makes me curious as to why they want the article. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, civility would be appreciated. Stop badgering, harassing, accusing, and/or badmouthing people who express different opinions. Further, you're ignoring the very important differences between the rules for articles (which are strict) and talk pages (which are meant to be discussions), complaining when people express their personal viewpoint. I'm not going to reply to your accusations, nor to any of your complaints save one, because quite frankly you've demonstrated a complete inability to maintain a civil discourse. I'd like to note, however, that Wikipedia is technically a "user submitted site"; WP:WEB discounts sites with no review process whatsoever, such as Newgrounds; while this would discount YTMND (which was more about Notability, which has been brought up in prior VfD), it would not remove the other Wiki sites that I included. I'm maintaining my Strong Keep, and noting that I feel this is a Bad Faith Nom.Alternator 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My mistakes in following discussion rules are not a reason for you to ignore the article rules. You have still yet to provide any argument whatsoever that disprove any of the policies I have given. May you answer my question? May you back up your vote? I think you know exactly why I'm being uncivil, it's because your arguments are false, ignore points, and have no basis. I hope you realize those sites are not reliable sources under any terms. Please, just read the rules. It is not a bad faith nom AT ALL! HOW COULD YOU EVEN THINK THAT? I provided THREE CLEAR VIOLATIONS, and a rebuttal to any points brought up. That's the most anyone can expect from a nomination. You disgust me. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikis are far from reliable sources. That includes WP itself; that's why third-party published sources for verification are insisted upon here. Suggesting that pages from other wikis with even lower standards of inclusion could be taken as sources is just silly. (And of course, ED isn't even allowed to be linked to on WP any more, so that's even more unusable.) WarpstarRider 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternator, look at the sixth AFD. It was ****ing flooded with anonymous users who were all voting keep. I know that the both the third and the sixth nominations at least have had a LUElinks topic on the AFD, which naturally led to the use of SPAs, anonymous users, and some dead accoutns piling on the keep votes. This article has had a history of massive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, so this accusation is just a precaution against this happening again. Hbdragon88 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of this, and if this is his reason, he should have pointed out the prior issues rather than blasting away without substantiating his complaints. Some editors might not be aware of the prior issues, and to simply accuse out of the blue is inappropriate.Alternator 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Longcat AFD. Hbdragon88 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not even assert meeting any of the criteria of WP:WEB, before we even get to the issues about reliable sources and verifiability. GRBerry 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Arkulary

Franklin Arkulary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't yet seem to meet notability standards. I could not find enough external coverage. Perhaps later he'll become notable enough but it's rather early in his career. Crystallina 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was cool down, no consensus. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be particularly happy with having this closed this way, and it's not particularly pleasant to simply reschedule a debate that has apparently already resulted in one editor leaving the project, several accusations of libel, and even possibly an instance of actual libel. So my first suggestion is that everybody involved in this discussion cool down and let some time pass before reopening this debate.

I'm closing this as no consensus based on the oft referenced "professor test" in WP:BIO. While WP:PROF has set a higher bar and includes more rigorous criteria by which to evaluate notability in this case, it is also a proposed guideline at this time. Given the entire nature of the discussion here, I'm not about to base the decision on a proposed guideline. Based on the criteria in WP:BIO the question of notability would seem to be a close call. Too close of a call to make in this heated environment, so the decision is no consensus with the strong recommendation that no further nomination of this article be made for at least a month. —Doug Bell talk 08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan James Pantone

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

The result was delete. I don't find that the case has been made that the subject of the article is unencyclopedic, or impossible of writing in a NPOV manner. However, I do find the POV, lack of sources and essay complaints do have merit and consensus. So this decision is without prejudice in regards to recreating this or a similar article that addresses those concerns. I am leaving the talk page since it contains discussion of the problems with the deleted article. (BTW, I have no stake in the subject here.) —Doug Bell talk 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and Evangelical Christians

Abortion and Evangelical Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article cannot be NPOV, as the article's title precludes the presence of points of view other than those of Evangelical Christians. Besides, it only cites the bible, nothing links to it, the title is not only POV but unclear, and the content is unencyclopedic. GertrudeTheTramp 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the [abortion and religion] page, and that page is 33 kb long as of right now. Although it is true that encyclopedias are supposed to summarize the topics covered, a look at that page would reveal that the coverage is cursory for almost every religion. Hence, attempting to pare that article down would be a fruitless task. I know that oftentimes related topics have a bit of overlap between articles, with notes along the lines of "for a more detailed look at something, please see this or that other article."Ngchen 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GertrudeTheTramp. Others are suggesting merge, but there's actually nothing I see here to be merged, it's just "evangelicals believe... evangelicals believe...' without any further substance. — coelacan talk — 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I continue to vote against deleting articles about things that I sincerely dislike, and if there's anything i sincerely dislike it's the views of evangelical christians on abortion (& on one other subject). Therefore I am aware of my possible bias, and I think we do much better to keep rather than give he i,mpression of our own non neutral stance.DGG 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the article can ever be NPOV with a title like that? I would also ask, is there any well-cited content here that could conceivably be merged elsewhere? If not, that's something of an indication that the content doesn't belong in this article either. — coelacan talk — 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense DGG, but right there you seem to tell everyone that you simply aren't going to follow procedure and create a factual, unbiased encyclopedia with us. So why should you even be allowed to continue editing, and why should anybody here trust you? And I do apologize if I'm sounding confrontational. I don't mean it that way. Tragic romance 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Proto. (aeropagitica) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-clip

E-clip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Orphaned Article, and it contains only 2 sentences SpookyPig 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Proto. (aeropagitica) 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefalcon

Gamefalcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It is a vanity article about a non-notable website, and is unfinished. Has no link to the website itself even. Pernambuco 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete self-referential neologism, possible WP:POINT violation, definitely original research. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Con Artist

Wiki Con Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable Afilwx 05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Userfied as obvious autobiography. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Barbara Biggs'

'Barbara Biggs' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not verifiable, seems to have a biased POV and includes original work. See original author's username, seems coincidental. Alan.ca 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know what you mean, I can see how it may be possible, but we can't even consider notability when the information is not verifiable. I am a little more sensitive to accuracy in this case because it seems the subject is writing their own biography. May be a total farce, the user could be completely unrelated, but their contribution history suggests conflict of interest. I'm erroring on delete for this one. I also put a warning template on the new user's page.Alan.ca 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, the author's contribution history Special:Contributions/Barbbiggs Alan.ca 07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, as it discourages this very topic.

I am Barbara Biggs, the person who has written the entry for myself. Please tell me what you suggest. I have added some links to verifiable interviews. A google search will reveal at least ten pages of interviews, articles etc about me, hopefully demonstrating that my social presence in Australia is considerable. I have added some of these links to the article. Or is it not ok to write your own? If anyone has advice on how to make it more Wikipedia friendly I would welcome it. BB.

I have just gone into the article to add more verifiable links and see that it has already been deleted. I went to quite a lot of trouble to write it and if it can be salvaged, would be good to have it back rather than start over.

  • First of all, Welcome to wikipedia Barb. I did some summary reading on your web page and it seems that you have an interesting past. You may in fact meet the wp:notability guidelines, but autobiography writing is discouraged on wikipedia. You will note that I did not remove the request you had placed for someone to write an article about you. Typically this kind of discussion should take place on your user talk page. When you finish making a comment, you should end it with four ~ to sign your name. I will chat with you on the talk page.Alan.ca 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This still reads like a notated bio. And given that the majority of the printed works are autobiographical/semi-autobiographical it appears that the author/subject has a need to self-promote. This t'aint the place to continue that... Sorry... but delete it. SkierRMH,08:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd like to be flexible but minimal notability combined with WP:COI means there's no reason to keep this article, unless it can be rewritten from verifiable sources establishing the importance of the author and/or books. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still getting the hang of this thang. Just replying to the comment above that my works are primarily autobiographical. My fourth book, Chat Room, ws written with the help and at the request of Victoria Police. They felt there was a strong need for a ficitonal story about the dangers in teen chat rooms. It is a fictional book for teenagers and has received widespread publicity for that reason. It is also endorsed by Australia's governmnet funded internet safety body, which is now referenced. My fifth and latest book is also not autobiographical and now has a reputable review in one of Australia's most respected finance liftouts of a major metro daily paper. Hopefully the other references will also help the article. As I've said, any other helpful hints about what could be deleted or, in terms of where sourcing is required, added. Thanks Barbara

  • Barb, we understand you're new here, but you have to appreciate that encyclopedia's don't endorse people to write their own articles about themselves. I am trying to help you on your talk page, but posting this chatter here isn't going to help the cause. Alan.ca 09:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Ugen64. MER-C 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlisted (band)

Unlisted (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Yet another band that fails WP:BAND and even admits it's not notable. Tagged for speedy, but giving it a chance here so the author can maybe come up with some sources attesting notability. Sandstein 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Tyson Tomko

Christian and Tyson Tomko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't a guide to every tag team ever. These two have teamed/been a duo in WWE for a bit, and now in TNA. There isn't a ton of notable information about their pairings. The relevant and notable information (the little there is) can be explained in their wrestler articles. This is a good example of what I'm now calling "tag team cruft". RobJ1981 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Then you don't know what a tag team is considering they haven't teamed in TNA in a match. Sure, they teamed a few times in WWE, but Tomko's role is more of a bodyguard role than that of a tag team partner. --James Duggan 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - each wrestler already has his own article and the partnership can be noted there. Otto4711 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable tag team that's been around for awhile, provided some good momentsm and wrestled together as a clearly allied unit in both WWE and TNA, and you're justifying its deletion by saying "Wikipedia is not a guide to every tag team ever". By this token, Rated-RKO (which despite actually winning tag team gold and having its own name has only been around about TWO MONTHS) should also be deleted.
  • Rated-RKO is now nominated for deletion, thanks for bringing that to our attention. Otto4711
    • And it is probably going to be kept. Winning a title is equal to notability acording to the concensus established by countless wresting afds in the past. This case is dissimilar to Rated-RKO, as this team hasn't won any gold yet. -- THLR 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed that this is dissimilar to Rated-RKO, who have their own name and tag team gold. However, the mere fact that Christian Cage and Tyson Tomko have been unified like this for an entire year in one promotion, and then brought back together in another, provides almost (if not exactly) as much notability. Unless they break up before doing absolutely anything of noteworth, Christian and Tomko should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.224.143 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete Their run on WWE was never really as a formal tag team like Edge and Christian or even like the Rock 'n' Sock Connection. Tyson Tomko was Christian's heel bodyguard, not his equal as a tag team partner. Kinda weak under WP:NOTE. --Eqdoktor 13:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This tag team ended when Christian got drafted to SmackDown! last year. It wasn't by choice, only by circumstance. Shortly thereafter, Christian did not resign with the WWE so he could go work for TNA Wrestling as "Christian Cage". He pushed to get Tyson Tomko into TNA, and currently, hes there as "Tomko". Who knows what Tomko's role will be? We have seen TNA put tag team titles on a lot of makeshift teams, so what if TNA decides to put their Tag titles on this duo? Then this article will have been deleted for nothing. I'd say give it a couple of months, and see where things are headed with this team. If Tomko doesn't really do anything but be a bodyguard and beat people up for Cage, then delete it. --James Maxx 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tomko and Christian, through their time in WWE, have established some kind of depth in character as a unit beyond just "wrestler and bodyguard". And already in TNA, there seems to be some indication of this, with Tomko "knowing something about Abyss's past". The minute Tomko starts to speak or team up with Christian regularly, this keep will be completely solid. 63.215.29.185 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is to everyone who doesn't have an account. Just to make you all aware, if you don't have an account, your votes aren't counted. -- THLR 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are now a Tag Team in TNA. Davnel03 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an actual team, Tomko is more of a bodyguard. --James Duggan 02:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to Delete per not being notable.. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne

Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable street. We don't need articles for most streets in the world, notability stops at the town level, except for very famous streets (Champs Elysées or Times Square, that level). Fails WP:V to show any importance beyond existence (I don't doubt its existence, for all clarity) Fram 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a disambiguation page, but should better be deleted as well (disambiguating between two redlinks that probably don't deserve individual articles is quite unnecessary), the second is a highway (highways are deemed more important than other streets), and the thirdd should better be deleted as well. You can see from the talk pages of these articles (first and third one) that they have not been discussed for deletion yet, so there is no way to know if they are considered notable enough (I doubt many editors would think so). There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that don't belong here, but there aren't enough of us checking articles to get rid of them. You are unlucky to have been spotted, those other streets have not been spotted until now and so are not up for deletion yet. Fram 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not make any claims of notability. A Google Search does not indicate notability with the first returns being real estate listings. [2].

A Google News Archive search comes up with stories about contaminated soil in a playground, Melbourne real estate values and a traffic accident but nothing indicating any notability for this street. [3]. I will leave a message for User:Cnwb as he is a local but I see nothing notable about this street. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments. First, Google indicates what we (non-local editors) can find about the subject when the article makes no claims to notability and provides no sources. It indicates that we have tried to find indications of notability with the means available to us. Everyone participating in this discussion is free to provide off-google sources of course, and then (but only then) the argument "but there's nothing on Google" becomes invalid. Second, a street does not become notable because someone notable lived there. A street becomes notable when there are secondary sources about the street (and not mentioning it in passing), as per WP:V. So even if you would produce a source qtating that Bert Newton lived there, it would still not help you unless the source went on to discuss the street at some length. In the absence of such sources, the street is non notable, fails WP:V, and should be deleted. Fram 10:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable, possible vanity article. —Doug Bell talk 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Nolasco

Stephanie Nolasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable Pigman (talk • contribs) 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Note (for Delete Purposes): The unsigned entry only shows another attempt by the subject or someone close the subject to retain the page for advertsing purposes. Who cares if one's dog took a dump and the subject wrote an article on a blog. Anyone can do that on MySpace! It doesn't make them famous. Unlike bloggers such as Ariana Huffington and Perez Hilton this writer is not famous and has not made any contributions to constructive journalism. As a journalism student and one who works with many in New York's publishing industry, I have never heard of this writer. Plagiarists such as Jayson Blair deserve an article on this site, not someone who owns a dog name foofoo or who has to mention her boyfriend (who also is not notable) in order to cover ground in article that is simply a vanity page. Simply there is no argument here -->DELETE.--XLR8TION 18:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • One More Additional Note: Sideshowfreak deleted my comments on this page in order to eliminate my POV in reasoning for the deletion of this page. I have reported him/her to the site administrators for vandalism. The deletion occured on December 11, 2006. Please be aware of this. --XLR8TION 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once Again This appears to be a very weak attempt by the subject to retain the page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as an advertising forum. If this page is permitted it could provide a loophole for many others to use this valuable resource as advertising space. Doing so might slow down servers as well as take up valuable space on them as well. --XLR8TION 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Wow, you do not read. Nowhere on there does it mention anything about a blog, or writing in a blog. You brought that in on your own. And I'm sure you're certainly not a notable journalist. Look at the first sentence in your comment, there's an error in sentence structure: "The unsigned entry only shows another attempt by the subject or someone close the subject to retain...". Go reread your own writing before you go out and criticize the writing of others.SideShowFreak 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWow? That's how you start a sentence? Guess that GED has brought you acclaim for your writing skills. Note to others: Sideshowfreak (AKA 216.49.220.163) has deleted my entries because he/she is not in accordance that this page is headed for deletion. Wikipedia should not be utilized as a sandbox. This is a valuable resource. If anyone wants to brag about their dog unfoofoo or talk about the number of deities the worship, then MySpace is the forum one should seek. This should be the end of this conversation. Any further deletions will be considered vandalism and prompt action by authorized administrators will be taken.--XLR8TION 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again your comment has errors. It's amusing."talk about the number of deities the worship..." What's funny is that the page doesn't mention anything about how many supposed deities anyone worships. Stop making things up. Some journalist you are; you can't even get your facts straight about what you read.SideShowFreak 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Pagan = worshipper of many gods; polytheistic. Unless one is the subject you should not be upset about this. Again, another attempt to keep a vanity page. If Ms. Nolasco wants to do readings she can do at a chicken beheading ceremony where she can pay homage to Yemaya, however I am sure the subject would agree totally that Wikipedia is not a forum to brag about her dog foofoo-a-loo, her favorite writers, and her boyfriend. Here is a link to [MySpace] that you can forward her. End of conversation. Delete--XLR8TION 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Another deletion by SideShowFreak. This person has been reported already and possibly faces account deletion and/or IP address block. Please do not blank pages or delete POVs. --XLR8TION 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SideShowFreak, please stop vandalizing this page. Blanking the comments of other editors is vandalism. XLR8TION, your recommendation for deletion, and reasons for this, are noted. You don't need to start every comment by re-stating what you've already said :-) Both of you need to calm down and back off. Might I suggest you refrain from further comments unless and until you have something new to add to the discussion. At this point the consensus on the AfD seems clear, and I don't think further re-stating will make any difference. Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I realize that the consensus was to merge, however, there was only one suggestion of where to merge. That article, Kirby (Nintendo), is already comprehensive, and includes a template at the bottom that lists the characters. There also isn't much on this list page to merge to an article. Redirecting doesn't seem useful as this isn't that likely of a page name, and any search on this will reveal a more useable list of names than simply choosing one to redirect to. There was no consensus for keeping this, so thus it is deleted. —Doug Bell talk 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby series characters

Kirby series characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is cluttered and redundant. Every character on this page except one already has a listing or entire article devoted to them. There is no rhyme or reason as to what characters are included here.

We have a category for Kirby characters, so there isn't a need for a bloated list like this.

More prominent characters have their own articles. Side characters like enemies have the Kirby series enemies, Kirby series bosses and Kirby series mini-bosses pages, among others.

Some of the information is contradictory or just too different from what is stated on the character's main article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Doug Bell talk 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbulb joke

Lightbulb joke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although I was considering myself as a strong inclusionist, I couldn't make sense of this endless list of jokes in an encyclopedia. May be we should keep it somewhere as a cultural heritage (wikibooks, wikisource) but I vote for deletion from wikipedia. What do you think? (Talk page says that Jimbo Wales deleted the jokes wikibook last year.) -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kerman, Judith B. "The Light-Bulb Jokes: Americans Look at Social Action Processes". The Journal of American Folklore > Vol. 93, No. 370 (Oct., 1980), pp. 454-458.
  • Dundes, Alan. "Many Hands Make Light Work or Caught in the Act of Screwing in Light Bulbs". Western Folklore > Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 261-266.

Reliable sources do exist, so WP:NOR shouldn't be an obstacle. Zagalejo 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice, these are exactly the sorts of reliable sources I've been asking for. I'd still recommend rewriting from scratch, because nothing currently there is actually based on sources and any assertions of fact may be wrong. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Twenty. One to create the lightbulb, two to argue about content on its talk page & revert each other's edits, one to nominate the lightbulb for deletion, two more to argue the merits in AfD, one to close the debate as keep, one to speedy the article after the AfD, one to complain at deletion review, two more to argue the question there, one admin to undelete the page, one to wheel war with the previous admin, one to request arbitration, four arbitrators & a bureaucrat to arbitrate, and potentially Jimbo Wales or the Foundation. --Ssbohio 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encylopedic entry on one of the most used jokes in English language history. --Oakshade 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is much better than simply a list of lightbulb jokes. Although it will naturally have a tendency to attract joke addition, the topic is unquestionably notable and there is good content. How was this not closed speedy keep already?--ragesoss 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many Wikipedia editors does it take to replace a lightbulb joke article with a finished article? We don't know yet, it isn't done, and there is no deadline so we don't know when we'll be done. But we should keep the new improved lightbulb joke article. GRBerry 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is definitely a cultural phenomenon and should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Of course with these kinds of subjects nothing can be verified definitively but you can't still deny that this is a very relevant article to idk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wfisher (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, subject may be valuable if researched properly, and verifiability demonstrated. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers

del unreferenced original essay. `'mikkanarxi 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete; laden with POV material and non-notable. --210physicq (c) 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenz in da 'Hood

Teenz in da 'Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally proposed for deletion as a non-notable local access TV show. There are hundreds of student-run, public access, non-regulated TV stations such as KBEV, and having an article on each student-produced program that airs on these stations is indiscriminate information. Delete in lieu of a merge, since as it is, most of the content is POV and unverifiable, and even if so would likely be non-notable. --Kinu t/c 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (Several merge suggestions, but no suggestion of where to merge.) —Doug Bell talk 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon (color)

Watermelon (color) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:V. I don't think that everything that gets mentioned somewhere (even in a serious work) should get an article. This kind of info could easily be put into a table (list of colours, with their RGB codes, a sample colour box, and a reference). There is no need to have a separate article about this or most other non-standard colours (by standard colours I mean red, green, blue, ... and cyan, magenta, ...). It has been named and defined, but that's all there is to say about it. It hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources (per WP:V) (and the reference you give is apparently not such a source: it is a passing mention, a short definition, not an article, paper, historical event, ... which has the colour watermelon as its subject). (It doesn't fail WP:OR though, like I mistakenly thought in my ProD notice.) It can arguably be said to fail WP:NOT as well (as a dictionary definition), but WP:V is my main concern. Fram 08:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Rose Glassman

Sarah Rose Glassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

One-sentence stub on a child actress. Asserts notability but not very plausibly; what were the roles? Bit parts? Not an A7 candidate but merit is far from obvious. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy (Gwen Stefani song)

Yummy (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I asked the owner of the site from which the cover supposedly came; she said that this had not been confirmed as the next single. In fact, she noted that the title track from The Sweet Escape "has been pretty much confirmed [as] the second single". So, not only is this article completely false, there's no reason for it to exist. ShadowHalo 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megabinx

Megabinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not appear to be a notable work of art. Article's been around for a year, so I'm surprised nobody has done anything with it. 36 unique Ghits, most of which wiki and mirrors. Included was one art gallery listing, and this link of info posted by Greenberg that the project had been "detroyed and delayed for the Contemporary Art Center Biennial".

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, improve, remove non-verifiable info. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meish Goldish

Meish Goldish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Very vain piece about this author, who may be notable. Created by User:Literarymagic, a single purpose account, and could be a conflict of interest. It's written in a thoroughly non-encyclopaedic style, and is a best case clean-up candidate. Ohconfucius 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close -- as CSD G1 (my error) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College marketing

College marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Incoherent stuff. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogwar

Blogwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

neologism Skrewler 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alkivar. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearya

Hearya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn Alexa[4] Skrewler 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara West

Her only claim to notability is having been an infant on board the Titanic and one of only two living survivors. Andrew Levine 09:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have two cows

You have two cows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is not encyclopedic. See talk. Ghewgill 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my vote after a few references have been added to show its notability. Jayden54 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an extremly notable joke. It has been used in many text books and a google search will show thousands of hits. Also it is written in an encylopedic fashion. Graemec2 09:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable things are those that have been written about in reliable, independent sources. Can anyone cite a secondary source about the joke, or just more examples of the joke itself? I could find thousands of examples of blue cars, but unless someone writes something about blue cars as a group, we can't support having an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (weak since it's largely unsourced but it probably could be I uess), undoubtedly a common genre of joke. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Graemec2. Google before proposing for deletion. -THB 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even as a joke, it's still used enough in political classes and discussions to be noteworthy. Quack 688
  • Weak Keep needs sources, but I can see how it would be notable. James086Talk | Contribs 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems useful on the topic. Jamesbuc
  • delete, seriously needs sourcing, but I doubt that should be hard to find. I'll change this to a keep if sources are added. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only interesting article that could come from this poor attempt at humour and effective attempt at propaganda would be one on its real origins, early spread, and pre-online diffusion in the media.EstherRice 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sense of humor (or lack thereof) doesn't make the article any less notable. Strong keep. Only advice I could give would be a few more sources. -Ryanbomber 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refrain from insults, and give a reason why it's notable. There are no sources and it has been questioned whether any could be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't trying to insult. Re-reading it it was a little crueler-sounding then I meant it to be. I meant that people have different senses of humor and just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean nobody else does. Reworded it a bit for civility. As for notability, [Google's neat.] -Ryanbomber 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • # of google hits != notability. "white car" gets 8 times as many hits, but still isn't a legitimate article topic. Notability is shown by being written about in independent sources, which still has yet to be shown. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I was hard-pressed for time and I had to go to Google. I still don't have all THAT much time so I can't get any "real" evidence, but the point of having at least slight significance because it had Google hits still stands. It proves that it exists and it's not just nonsense someone added for giggles. This is OBVIOUSLY not something someone just invented in school one day. Notability shouldn't be too hard to prove, and I'll do so when I get more time. -Ryanbomber 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notable and relevant psychological and sociological sources can be added, besides that in Fireland the joke goes: you have two lamas... do they get an article too ? Alf photoman 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alf the fact that their is an alternative version of the joke, as per your lamas, just proves that it is notable. Immitation is the greatest form of flattery.Graemec2 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. verified, sourced, notable, encyclopedic. Certainly better-known and more notable than most of the internet memes that have articles. Agent 86 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Added 5 print references which presented and discussed the jokes as illustrative of economic issues, and not just as a "Joke of the week" filler. Multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable print sources over a span of years from around the world. Every Wiki article should have so notable a subject. Edison 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as references have been found by User:Edison, proving its notability. Axem Titanium 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can we rename this article? I agree that it is weakly notable, but the title is misleading and uninformative--Dmz5 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is encyclopedic and plenty of material in article. Seems ok to rename when AFD is over. Fg2 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is encyclopedic, sourced, and undoubtedly will improve over time. RFerreira 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've seen it used in political science textbooks, and can look up references, it's an interesting paradigm in political science, and while it could be merged into say ideology it wouldn't fit terribly well. Wintermut3 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable joke... well referenced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is a notable joke. --SonicChao talk 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sheesh. "Delete because it's not funny" is GREAT rationale. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencylopedic. I don't dispute that "Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device. Nevertheless the article doesn't add any non-obvious information on its subject beyond reproducing the "Two Cows" joke. Encyclopedic articles are about their subject matter; that is, they more than merely exemplify their subject matter. If a reader who encountered the "Two Cows" joke elsewhere came here to find more information on it, would he leave any more knowledgeable? No. Accordingly, the article as it is now is unencyclopedic. To the extent I doubt any verifiable information could be found to make it ecyclopedic, the article should be deleted. Pop Secret 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep b/c i've never heard of this "two cow" reference, i find this entry incredibly useful. Jiggles3000 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I Dissent. Webster defines Encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge". To the extent that "Two Cows" is either a joke, or a rhetorical device used as an explanatory device, it qualifies as "information." I disagree that there is as wide an intellectual chasm between describing subject matter and exemplifying/embodying it as Secret, J. would have have us believe. Indeed, it is unclear that encyclopedias function as merely devices to encapsulate general concepts, instead of descriptively identifying something; if that were the case, biographical articles would not exist. It seems obvious that I know what a swimming pool is and elucidation does not result from wikipedia; my knowledge is not furthered. Yet, swimming pool is a valid article - its propriety is an article precisely because certain people may not *know* what a swimming pool is. This is the same logic that defends Two Cows. Additionally, as specifically noted on Wikipedia's policy page defining what Wikipedia isn't, it is noted that "...there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover..." To the extent that a layperson would seek further information about "Two Cows" and the corresponding no cost of keeping the article, it should stand. M'Naghten-T'sea-voz, C.J. 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the two cows joke is a notable phenomenon. - ∅ (∅), 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is encyclopedic, doesn't fail any policies. --- RockMFR 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I actually hadn't realized its similarity to the concept of a tutorial on the invention of currency. Keep. DS 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not the world's greatest article - but some of our readers will find it useful/interesting. SteveBaker 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than a joke, it's an allegory of the various political & economic systems we live under. Of necessity, improve the artice & add better sourcing. After all, you only have two cows until one gets nominated for deletion. --Ssbohio 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that bit has references. --Richmeistertalk 05:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Delete, by the way: No I Don't Have Two Cows, Unlike You! 86.20.53.195 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:COI and WP:BIO. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Mendicino

Geoff Mendicino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity article. No independent, reliable, verifiable evidence of notability. Drat (Talk) 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  • No one has written specifically about Geoff as far as I can tell other than a blog which is a trivial work
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • No Geoff does not contribute enough to any field to be notable.
Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
  • No
Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
  • No
Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
  • No, he is not hollywood walk of fame, nor is an e-personality who is verifiable like Lowtax.
Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or
  • No
Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
  • No, just some mtv appearance which with gamelife.
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
  • No he has received no notable awards.
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
  • No
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.
  • No
Professor Test?
  • No
Verifiability
  • No
Expandability
  • Possibly
100 year test?
  • No
Biography
  • No
Search Engine Test [[5]]
  • This about the only thing he comes close to passing but it is primarily his information and profiles.
As far as I can tell this person is not currently notable and there is not indication of notability in the future to warrant keeping the article. --Quirex 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings of Singapore

International rankings of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I fail to see how this is even remotely encyclopedic. This is just cruft. Unencyclopedic list which needs to be deleted imo. – Chacor 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was my head hurts. I've closed several difficult AfDs, some much larger and more contentious than this one, and I pride myself on finding the proper line of reasoning and not resorting to counting votes. However, this one is one of the more difficult I've closed because, as a possibly emerging field of study, the references and mentions appear to be on the cusp of satisfying the requirements for an article. The comment here that best describes my conclusion of the arguments happens to be the last comment in the discussion from Barte, with one important change: Merge essence into business process management article at least until the category is actually established. The potential problem with this is that the BPM article is not particularly robust. Including any signifant portion of the HIM article will overwhelm the content of the BPM article, which would create a skewed impression of the acceptance of HIM relative to traditional BPM.

So my decision is to merge the essence of the human interaction management article to business process management and redirect the HIM article to BPM. The HIM portion of the BPM article should represent no more than approximately 20% of the BPM article. IF the BPM article is expanded, then the section on HIM may expanded comparably. I've replaced the HIM article with the redirect—the material needed for merging can be found in the history. —Doug Bell talk 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human interaction management

This article serves only as an advert for the book being sold by the author of the article. This is a non-notable neologism, I can't find any mention of it in reliable, independent, non-self-published sources. Anyway, anything that is notable in this article is covered in "Human Resources Management". Prod removed by author, who I suspect of using socks (look at the page history). Keywords: SPAM, COI, NN yandman 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history, before the author of the book came into play, the article seemed more acceptable, although still not very notable. This is the last "old" version. If anyone feels the article doesn't deserve deletion, do they feel it should be reverted to that state? yandman 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: There are more socks here than in my entire clothes draw. yandman 11:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so - see below for explanation of level of interest Keith.harrison-broninski 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with Yandman and the others calling for this article's deletion. As a long-time Business Process Management professional, and as someone who has seen in practicethat the area of "Human Interaction Management", under whatever moniker it is referred to, is going to be one of the keys to success as organizations continue to evolve towards a "process-enabled" or "process-oriented" state - one in which management and staff views and manages their end-to-end business processes as their value-delivery engines, versus their functional silos as the means of value delivery - I believe this topic has real value to Wikipedia readers. It would be a great disservice to the community to remove this article. Its presence will help to stimulate discussion and, yes, debate about what I and many others do believe will emerge as an important element of how businesses manage their end-to-end business processes in the future. Mxbarn 13:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)— Mxbarn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We're not here to "stimulate discussion". We will talk about this technique you "and many others do believe will emerge", when it emerges. yandman 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of the article - and one (only one!) of the SEVERAL books that cover Human Interaction Management (HIM). HIM is nothing to do with Human Resource Management. You can find a detailed description of the HIM theory in, for example, Peter Fingar's "Extreme Competition" (Meghan-Kiffer Press, 2005). I originated this theory, but it has now become the focus of interest from various different worlds. For example, HIM is now taught on MBA and Computer Science courses at Universities and Business Schools around the world, and there are several PhD research projects currently underway. There are many dozens of organizations implementing the ideas in their management practice. Articles proliferate on IT industry Web sites (Information Age, ebizq.net, bptrends.com, bpmg.org, bpm.com, and so on). The company EDS have recently published material declaring HIM to be the next generation of enterprise management practice. I created the wikipedia page as a neutral forum to help explain the ideas and encourage contribution from others. Since there is such widespread interest in the ideas, and all the software available to support them is free, this seems to be an appropriate use of wikipedia. Keith Harrison-Broninski Keith Harrison-Bronkinski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and AFD.
  • Delete per above - looks a lot like astroturfing of a neologism to me. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the article was fascinating. I am actually in the process of reading one of the three books referred to in the article. To me the subject matter represents a significant step forward in our understanding of the management of complex systems involving the interaction of people and computers, i.e. of practically all significant knowledge and information management systems. What is the problem everyone has? Keith Harrison-Broninski quotes books by two authors other than his own as bibliography. Does an idea, concept or paradigm have to become so well established and accepted to the point of being ready to be superseded to be accepted by Wikipedia? Does originality and genius always have to be snuffed out by lack of vision and comprehension? --Gervas Douglas Gervas 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)— Gervas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To be short and to the point: yes. yandman 13:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree with the calls for deletion. Among the vendor community there is much use or misuse of the phrase "Human Interaction management" and we need clear definition in order to stop the vendor marketing machines hijacking another solid business principle for their own commercial gain. Human Interaction Management, bears no relationship to HR as some have suggested. It is simply suggesting that if we really want to make a difference in our organisations, then we need to better understand how people work with people and then provide the ability for the more technical among us to deliver systems that support the way we actually work. I also know that "HIM" is now widely cited and recognised as an important new management approach. -- Mark McGregor, Author and Coach --- 13.52 8th December 2006— 82.36.189.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • STRONG DELETE As this is astroturfing and neologism. Looks like Possible original research, Spam, and definate Conflict of Interest as the author admits to adding this information. May want to warn the author of his violations of Sockpuppetry and that Wikipeida is not a place to advertise your product. (On a personal sidenote, this guy just rubs me the wrong way) --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I'm amazed that three different people could possibly come across this article within such a short amount of time (less than four hours) and argue so vehemently for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Do you know what I'm getting at? Yes, I am accusing "Mxbarn", "Gervas Douglas" and "Mark McGregor" of being single purpose accounts and/or sock-puppets of Keith what's-his-face. By the way, it looks like he's copyvio-ing himself, lol. Axem Titanium 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am NOT a "sockpuppet". DO NOT DELETE. I've been a professional business process management consultant for over thirty years and am located in Bellevue, WA (USA). I believe the material in this entry to be meaningful and useful in customer engagements; and expect it to expand greatly as more people come to actually understand it and its value. David Holliday
  • As a long-time consultant to contemporary BPM, I would like to align myself with the retention of the article in a form or another. In my humble opinion, HIM represents a clear conceptual and philosophical departure from BPM in its traditional forms: by enabling renegotiation of the public process through a multi-tier control mechanism it provides for irregular collaborations with a mobile connection structure. Notwithstanding the fact that the term has been fervently promoted by Harrison-Broninski who coined it in the first place, the term has been established within the BPM community to the extent that it transcends the notion of a neologism. As the links to the commercial product and even to KHB's web sites have been removed, I cannot see any COI or other justification for deletion. -- Janne J. Korhonen {This is an anon user 80.222.38.109 which has made few or no other edits outside of this topic.)
  • DO NOT DELETE: The understanding of process context and patterns of work during human interaction is a logical development of the more mechanical workflow, BPM and associated process thinking of the past decades. It is important to broadcast the interesting new concept to a wider audience and open more dialogue on the topic. It's worthy of a place in Wikipedia. The fact that this article is seemingly obscure and supported by a limited number people does not indicate irrelevance, but rather "newness", so all the more reason to refine a mutually agreeable version of the topic. The commercial reference to Keith's book could perhaps be shifted from the 1st line to the External Links section to appease those who suspect a mercenary motive, which, by the way I don't. -- Ian Ramsay Ian Ramsay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this AFD.
  • STRONG DO NOT DELETE: Human Interaction Management is the next phase of Business Process Management, which you can read about at Wikipedia... which also contains reference to HIM as the future of BPM. You can also read the artilce by the founder and chairman of the Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC.org)(http://www.ebizq.net/hot_topics/bpm/features/7462.html) as just one instance where the term HIM is referernced. You can also google "human interaction management" and skim thru the 12,400 hits to see that Information-Age(UK), IEEE articles, CIO magazine and umpteen other references to the term appear in reliable, independent, non-self-published sources. Apparently those complaining about "sockpuppets" (is that a neologism to be deleted as well?)are not in the world of enterprise IT. Speaking of other self-serving neologisms, how about "Wikipedia" for J. Wales? How about that cute one, WWW in serving the interests of Tim-Berners Lee? Because something is new to "you," that doesn't make it a neologism. Those in the business/IT world want to know about this topic! --Martin Ashcroft — Martin Ashcroft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and AFD.(--SO, WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE POSTING? NICE TRY TO SUPRESS THE CONTENT OF THIS POST IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS MERITS. MAY THE WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES?)
Comment Way to many Single purpose accounts here, either sock puppets or meat puppets. I still find it amazing people that want articles kept actually think making SPAs actually will change the outcome. If anything, it weights against you. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hmmm... seems Brian works for Mocrosoft ... a Microsoft sock puppet, or Microsoft meat puppet? Surely Microsoft won't be happy if a new category of software steps on their toes? Having just become aware of HIMS, yes, indeed I'm a first-time contributor to Wikipedia. Guilty as charged! If only I was an nth time contributor, then and only then would I speak the truth (?) So I guess that, therefore, it weighs agains me, I'm disqualified. If you are a "First timer" as suggested by this Microsoft employee, I guess we should keep out mouths shut, and crawl under a rock. Yes, Brian, there are too many SPAs here, so delete away.


  • DO NOT DELETE: I think this article should be kept. I agree with the other "pro-retain" comments that Human Interaction Management is real and complementary to traditional BPM. -- Eric Veal, Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.•
  • Yandman and others calling for this article's deletion, please know that I use only one wikipedia account, Keith Harrison-Broninski. And those calling for the article's retention are not proxies for me. Many people have a professional interest in how BPM is moving forwards into the sphere of human collaboration.

Further, some of you seem to have the wrong impression of me personally. Check out my blog! I write a column for ebizq.net, IT Directions, aimed at exposing industry hype: "Keith Harrison-Broninski cuts through the hype in his hands-on guide to where enterprise technology is really going." If any of you will be at Javapolis this week, I am speaking on Friday, am around from Tue night onwards, and am happy to chat anytime.

In general, the excitement around HIM may have sprung up quickly, but it is not a neologism. Rather, HIM is a necessary label for a well-defined and widely-accepted synthesis of management principles and patterns. To indicate the importance accorded to it, a short list of material on HIM from well-respected IT and management sources is now available on the HIM page.

Given this sort of interest in HIM from academia, analysts, and industry, what is needed now is an independent source of information about it - i.e., wikipedia. I may have written the original book, and the first versions of the wikipedia article, but called from the start for others to pick up where I left off with HIM. And indeed there are now many other books, PhD projects, etc focused on HIM. The term has become common management/business/IT currency, but save for wikipedia, has no online definition in the public domain.

HIM practices benefit society - better collaboration cures many ills. So their definition needs a public domain home. Hence the wikipedia article, which to me seems the natural location. Isn't this kind of community knowledge-sharing what wikipedia is all about? Keith Harrison-Broninski

    • DO NOT DELETE

I read Keith H-B's work on H.I.M. and felt that it pulls together a string of otherwise independent elements into a single holistic viewpoint that uniquely illustrates the difficulty with current BPM and path-finds for a better way forward. The potential of H.I.M. is enormous and should be explored in order to potentially revolutionise the internet...again. I believe that the deletion of this article would be a shameful stopping of a massive potential and that it serves a very useful place on Wikipedia. I strongly feel that it should not be deleted. Bryan Sergeant

STRONG DO NOT DELETE I'm a strong advocate for keeping this page for the following reasons:

  • It satisfies the No Original Research principle: This is an important evolution and confluence of several concepts, tools and approaches. It and its constituent parts have been published in conference proceedings, journal articles and books for some time. There is nothing in this article or the citations it contains that hasn't been published. I assume we're not talking about peer reviewed scientific journals although a good proportion of the work would have been published in such places. I can't see how it violates this principle of the wikipedia.
  • It satisfies the Verifiability principle: This is related to the previous point on No Original Research. Many of the constituent components of this work have been published in readily accessible and reputable publications (books, journals, etc). The emerging ideas simply represent the leading edge of current practice. I suspect the wikipedia would be devoid of content if we stripped it of anything with a leading edge and I'm sure the founders didn't have any sort of simplistic, arrogant application of this principle in mind when they proposed it.
  • It satisfies the Neutral Point of View principle: I fail to see how one can argue that the article doesn't represent a neutral point of view. Those wikipedians who advocate the deletion of the page have had ample opportunity to edit the page to address any deficiencies in this regard. This is not a subjective or faith-based subject. It is a set of tools, techniques and approaches that has a lot to offer and is being increasingly widely practiced in business and IT circles. If there are quibbles about its appropriateness or otherwise on the periphery, let people make the appropriate edits. An author who has published related material cannot be accused of bias simply because he is one of only a few people to contribute.

Now, some general comments. I have been struggling with mechanistic approaches to and notations for business process modelling and management for some time now so I want to argue that the topic is extremely valuable. My first inkling that there was an alternative approach came when I read Martyn Ould's book, Business Process Management: A Rigorous Approach. He points out, as does Harrison-Broninski, that human driven processes are dynamic, self modifying and impossible to depict using rigid mechanistic process management tools and techniques. I followed up by reading Harrison-Broninski's book and it, combined with other reading and practice, has opened up a wealth of possibilities as far as meaningful process management approaches and an opportunity to address the old business-IT divide in very exciting ways. By the way, under no circumstances should this topic be redirected to Human Resource Management! That is not what it is about.

If you don't like neologism, that's too bad! There are innumerable ways to categorise and classify the things we do. If it distinguishes one topic from related ones in a meaningful way then it should be encouraged as a good thing, not removed because of some blinkered and simple-minded application of an individual principle. That's what the wikipedia is trying to overcome, isn't it?

Lastly, regarding some of the arguments in favour of deletion. Although I hesitate to dignify them with the term argument. Instead they contain unsubstantiated slurs and accusations and are very disappointing to see in this environment. I had to have a chuckle when I saw "astroturfing and neologism" in the same sentence but on the whole I've been very disenchanted with the vitriol and meaningless drivel from many of the people advocating deletion. If you want to look me up next time you're in Canberra you can, over the beverage of your choice, verify for yourself that I am no sock puppet (another neologism from the anti-neologism movement?).

--Andrew Warner 02:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's there. yandman 08:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think Keith's phrase (above) eloquently expresses the problem here: "what is needed now is an independent source of information about it". Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be that source. We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. As regards the flurry of activity on this page, be aware that meatpuppetry is also frowned upon. yandman 08:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yandman, wikipedia is a tertiary source for HIM. The primary source is the books and academic publications. The secondary source is the Web sites, print articles, Web articles, blogs, screencasts, podcasts, etc. And re puppetry, it's easy to see why as an outsider you would be suspicious of the response level here. However, just to give a single example of the interest in HIM, the HIM Web site reports thousands of unique visitors per week. Keith Harrison-Broninski
  • Commment : Wikipedia policy on AFDs is: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight Hence sock puppets and meat puppet comments are usually disregarded by the closing admin, making all that effort completely wasted. Another wikipedia article says: One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.

Unfortunately, (vandalism aside) such cases are notoriously hard to distinguish from good-faith contributors writing their first article or from anonymous users who finally decide to log in. If someone does point out your light contribution history, please take it in the spirit it was intended - a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person. Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process. --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do not delete - modify if needed As a quality professional and member of ASQ since 1993, I currently try to come to grips with Business Process Management. I have read Andrew Spanyi’s [More for Less] and find the current article on HIM a useful and logical piece in line with Wikipedia policies. The book itself is on my to-read list. If it helps the editor’s decision, I registered with Wikipedia before this deletion debate came up. However, as my very few-and-between activities on Wikipedia may show, I am not a prolific writer like most of the other contributors here. As a naïve English speaker, I can only ask the editors to decide less on the status of the posters and more on the merit of the contributions and the sincerity of intentions that show through between the written lines. Bernd in Japan 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - modify if needed I've never commented before, but I'm curious as to why this page is so contended. I appreciated the reference to the theory, since I'm doing research on workflow and scientific information dynamic. Why not sipmly edit the article rather than delete it? The information is obviously valuable and so far I've seen a lot of disagreement around its presentation. How could it be modified to fit protocol? Why not edit it as such. For starters, it may be best to not start out with reference to an individual before the theory has become more developed... but keep the content. There is a definite need for the information on the internet, as I haven't found much on this outside the university library. Thanks. J. 12 Dec 2006 (5:20) Madison, WI
  • Merge essence into business performance management article at least until the category is actually established. The technology and business consultant sectors cook up neologisms by the dozens. Some of them, like BPM, actually take root, while others turn out to be marketing ploys: ways to differentiate a product or service in a crowded market. I'm not informed enough about HIM to know for sure which this is--but my sense is that the verdict is still out. The article itself reads more as a book excerpt than a traditional Wikipedia entry. I have no sense that the term HIM has reached the broader industry, where it would elicit criticism as well as praise. And my sense here is that the vehement protests over the article's possible deletion are coming mostly from true believers, rather than from people who are actually seeking information. In other words, Wikipedia seems to be used here as a way to validate the term HIM, rather than as a reflection of the term already validated. Until such validation is clear, I suggest merging the essence of this article into BPM. (FYI, I wandered into this discussion because one of the proponents is persistently adding wikispam external links to another article. Guilt by association, I suppose)-Barte 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the 8 delete to 2 keeps, the keep votes actually presented arguments instead of "per nom" and were given weight. However, the google link lists 11 hits for the name, with only a couple distinct links to the site. The MTV reference was similarly underwhelming. There sources cited simply did not confer adequate notability, so I find that the nominator's claim of non-notability is valid. —Doug Bell talk 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameLife

GameLife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Online gaming show. Only real claim to notability is getting hits from being an Awful Link of the Day on Something Awful and getting sponsored to go to E3 by some media company. Only two minor non-first-party sources, one of which is a press-release. Alexa rank 2,596,635 Drat (Talk) 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gametrash

Gametrash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Gaming website. No independent, reliable, non-trivial citations of notability. Alexa rank 2,253,497. Drat (Talk) 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shehzad Kazmi

Shehzad Kazmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not a notable subject. The creator (user) has removed the {{a7}} notice several times, and wishes to have the matter reviewed. Oden 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kchase T 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargazers (World of Darkness)

Stargazers (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article's information is redundant, since i moved the text to Garou_Tribes_(Werewolf:The_Apocalypse). Deletion is preferd, so that there is only one source about the tribe.Heinrich k 11:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirG

AirG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed without explaination by author[10] after the author also contested the speedy deletion tag. Even though I originally nominated it for speedy deletion, I abstain as this is procedural. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undead battalion

Undead battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable, unverifiable video game plan from some schoolboys. Yes, this really was made up in school one day. Nydas(Talk) 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as hoax worthy of speedy deletion. --210physicq (c) 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bernard Sawyer, AIA, G.C. Architect

Looks very notable, but Google has heard neither of him, nor of the magazine he's supposed to have founded. Hoax? Created by User:Robertsawyer would you believe?--Sandy Scott 12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fatsumas

The Fatsumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN Pakistani underground band. Haven't released any album yet, no video on circulation on music channels, songs distributed through band's website and hand burn cds, gets only 136 GHits. fails WP:Music. voldemortuet 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hamilton (UK Politician)

Daniel Hamilton (UK Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable politician. Has never held elected office (or, as far as I know, stood for office). So what is he? Member of a party faction committee. Advisor to a notable politician, and a large part of this article is actually about this MEP, not the subject. Editor of a very small circulation internal party faction magazine, not a notable publication. Nothing to suggest notability of his own. Emeraude 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to penetration test. For now I've removed the spam link, added a see also link to penetration test, and added the merge templates. —Doug Bell talk 12:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web application penetration testing

Web application penetration testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The subject of the article is nonencyclopedic. The article was created by a user with "@applabs.com" in his username. The article links to said company. Sean Brunnock 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 America's Next Top Model, Cycle 7. Yes, there are a lot of keep comments here. However, none of the keep arguments (yes indeed, this is not a vote, so arguments, not numbers are what's important) makes a case for the subject meeting any of the criteria of WP:BIO. —Doug Bell talk 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose Bickerstaff (second nomination)

Melrose Bickerstaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(second nomination) — (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted by AfD, at the end of September, 2006.

It was recreated on December 3 [11]. Not knowing it had been previously deleted, I prodded it on December 7 [12]. After the prod was removed by User:Stealthusa without comment, I added a speedy (CSD G4) tag [13], which was seconded by User:Sigma 7 [14], and then deleted by User: Ted3977 with the comment "A lot of people supporting this pages [sic] existence popped up. Sorry".

That the contestant was popular is simply a mass invocation of WP:ILIKEIT. If the previous contestants on this reality television show are any gauge, the model might be popular now, but in a year or two few people will remember her. Aside from losing on the show, she's done nothing noteworthy or substantial. Google tests are tempting but invalid, since they return lots of hits on MySpace pages, blogs and forums about fans discussing the show -- but precious few hard, third-party stories.

This model fails WP:BIO, then, and the article should be deleted leaving a redirect back to the show season's page. -- Mikeblas 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this anon user has already voted Keep -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE I did do an indepth google and dogpile search for Thirdparty articles. She fails WP:BIO very badly. WP:ILIKEIT does not trumph WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV. Since no reliable independent third party sources are available to prove she has any more notability than the show she was a contestant on, she fails WP:BIO. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Current google search results are irrelevant. Top two on a notable television competition show, she inevitably will gain even more notoriety. -- Freemarket 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP There is no reason to delete this page! Gina Choe has her own page and she finished tenth on the show! Also, Bickerstaff is now working for a design company. Put together with her Top Model fame she does have enough notability for her own page.-Acne_Wash
  • KEEP the article. There's no reason to delete, she is a current working model, a catergory which includes many.
Comment that seems to be the common cry here... but it does not make her notable. Any claims of future notability are blatant crystal ballism... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm sure she'll have a VH1 show, since everyone else seems to be getting one.

Comment That was an award given out by the school she attended. --Dgies 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They just announced the winner last Wednesday. Don't reality shows usually make the constestants sign a paper saying they can't draw attention to themselves, or reveal the results until the winner is revealed on tv? So, there isn't going to be much on her at the moment. Since Melrose was a decent modle, it is likely to assume that she'll be just as notable as the other 2nd runner-ups.
Comment exactly... that is what we are trying to tell you. Assuming that she'll be notable in the future is crystal ballism and crystal ballism has no place on Wikipedia -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this user has already voted. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since her official website went up yesterday, it's safe to assume she is still modeling. (That doesn't necessarily make her notable though). --andrew|ellipsed...Speak 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, we don't create articles (or keep articles) about people on the off-chance that the subject may become famous/notable in the future. No matter how likely it might appear. Clear notability is supposed to be achieved first. (And as for the other runners-up, WP:INN. They may be notable for other reasons or may simply not have been deleted yet.) Xtifr tälk 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with points already made. -- TrojanMan 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has the following claims to notability:
    • runner-up on ANTM
    • has appeared in an editorial for Seventeen Magazine
    • has served as a special correspondent for E!
    • is designing clothes for a non-notable company
That is all, and it is what people should be basing their vote on. It for people to decide whether that passes WP:Bio... as I have already indicated I believe that it clearly does not. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- according to a recent (unsourced) edit, the work for E! was a reward for winning a challenge on ANTM, so that should be scratched when considering notability... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the comments come from people who have very few edits outside ANTM related articles... and users who have been accused of being spammers on their talk page. There has also been double-voting by two users, who also fit the above categories. Most of the rest has come from me trying to point out the inadequacies in peoples arguments and show where double voting etc is happening... it looks like this is going to be kept but I still can't see how a) anyone would beleive that one is notable simply because there's been a lot of discussion here (see my points above), and b) that the four (unsourced) points above are enough to claim notability. However, I am but one voice... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect, protect Those four points mentioned are evidence of notability, but aside from the ANTM appearance, stuff like that would apply to tons pf people working in the fashion and modeling industry. If she achieves notability independently on ANTM, such as signing a modeling contract with a major agency, or becoming successful as a designer on her own, then it makes sense to put her in a seperate article. --Dgies 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:DGG has a point. Besides she has enough google hits as far as I'm concerned. -- Crevaner 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment. Of course, that's completely irrelevant. Google hits are one way to determine the lack of notability, but they don't prove notability. -- Mikeblas 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I disagree, in the strongest terms possible. Google hits do not prove, nor do they disprove notability, they merely demonstrate how frequently other sites link to each other. Yamaguchi先生 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Your description of Google is flawed. Google doesn't track links; it tracks text. You're searching through the text on the pages, not the links on the pages. The order of the results might be influenced by the number of links, but the number of hits is the number of time the searched text was found in the corpus Google has spidered. If the text isn't found at all, it's a strong argument that the term doesn't exist. If you have more questions, feel free to send an email or use my talk page as I don't think clarifying this is an appropriate use of the AfD process. -- Mikeblas 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you work for Google? The only thing that is "flawed" is using Google as a test to determine the notability of a subject. They are particularly unreliable for pre 18th century topics and the like. Yamaguchi先生 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If a whole bunch of tv shows have articles about their minor, reacurring characters, a notable contestant on a reality show can't have an article? It just doesn't feel right to me. I mean, reality contestants usually sign a confidentiality agreement, that says they can't talk about the show until it's over. Why don't you just keep the article for another week, and if nothing more notable is realeased, re-nominate her? It seems a bit more fair. --andrew|ellipsed...Speak 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first nomination occured before the show was even over, and i have no problem, and agree that she was nn then, but since the show is over, and she got 2nd, the whole situation is a bit different. --andrew|ellipsed...Speak
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingot certificate

Ingot certificate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod contested (rationale was: objectionable reason for prod). I'm insulted. :-) My original prod rationale read

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This organization is beyond obscure and is using Wikipedia as free webspace. No sign of any third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied as obvious autobiography. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leona-Louise Lewis

Leona-Louise Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability, and nothing to meet WP:BIO criteria. Also, it appears to have been created by either the subject, or someone closely related to it, judging by the username - Leonalewis (talk · contribs · count). It seems to be either a vanity/promotion page, or an attack page, but I'm not certain it has any encyclopedic value. SunStar Nettalk 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - No notability established. 2 links to radio station websites that don't appear to have anything to do with the subject and a Myspace link. Speedy tag was removed by author...I'm going to replace it. --Onorem 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mzungu, where it is already mentioned. Transwiki can be done from the history. Sandstein 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muzungu

Muzungu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Appears to be a dicdef, of a word in a non-English language. No sources. I don't know if it can be expanded beyond that or possibly merged elsewhere, so I bring it here for discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the word is significant because of its widespread use across central and southern africa. Anyone who has travelled to the region and mingled with the locals will atest to thisMuntuwandi 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. OK, I read it all. The sources, the article, the entire discussion here. I must say, the discussion here was the most entertaining of it. Despite the persistent hammering by large caliber arguments on the WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR themes, the counter arguments put up a spirited defense of the article. Even though I take it that I'm one of only a few people to grow up in the U.S. without having heard of this game, I was persuaded by the common folklore arguments. Unfortunately, common folklore doesn't provide the facts and details needed to write an article. That gets back to the WP:NOR arguments. On balance, it can't stay without sources because despite what everyone else seems to "know" about this, it still needs sources. —Doug Bell talk 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle hand game

Circle hand game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle hand game in May. In the six plus months since, the article has remained obstinately unsourced, other than Urban Dictionary and the like. Each new edit seems to be either original research or yet another thing made up in school one day. Verifiability applies to things made up in school as well, even if they are things that "everyone knows about". WP:IHEARDOFTHIS does not trump WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is for those of you who say because the nature of this game is that it can't be cited, it should be deleted. Folklores and bedtime stories have been passed around by word of mouth for thousands of years, yet they cannot be sourced, does that mean they should be deleted on wikipedia as well? This game is very popular amongst children and young adults, and has been passed around by word of mouth and popular culture. Just because you haven't heard of it does not make it unpopular. From personal experience, I can say that the vast majority of young adults have heard of this game, making it more popular than some folklores. 10:00, 9 December 2006
  • Delete OR cruf-article. Six months is long enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if you took out everything in the article that couldn't be cited to a reliable source, you'd have nothing left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article is becoming a place to just post gibberish - I have cleaned up the worst of it but lets get rid of this piece of junk. Markco1 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nature of this game is one that cannot be sourced. You're not going to find information in any newspaper articles, because it is somewhat of an underground thing, and even if it were sourced, that article would be inaccurate because the game does have so many different rules from school-to-school. The page should remain because it is a popular game in schools. Perhaps it should be locked for editing, but not deleted. Kherrell4 10:40, 8 December 2006. — Kherrell4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • There's so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to start. First of all, I said there IS sourcing (albeit it doesn't look very good, but it's still there.) Second of all, how is ignoring verifiability ignoring NPOV? Just because a statement exists as a source doesn't instantly make it NPOV, nor does a statement that isn't sourced always not NPOV. Third, this isn't WP:NFT seeing as it's obviously been around (see: this discussion and people saying "I know about this game.") We really shouldn't remove information for no reason other then it's hard to verify - especially if we already have verification.-Ryanbomber 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are junk, NPOV cannot be verified without independent critical review (of which none exists), 90% of the content added over time is things made up in school one day (check the history). Find credible, non-trivial sources and you can keep the article. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE OK, time for today's Wikipedia lesson: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level.

And further into the rule The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. and Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources

Already you have stated there are no reliable, third-party sources on this, so the article Fails WP:V and Reliable sources

Moving on...

Original Research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

kipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Well, by looking at this, we see the article in question is in violation of this policy. So we have an article which is NOT 'improving' wikipedia, is Original Research, does not cite reliable third party sources, and is not verifiable by the common person. BTW: Ignore all rules is meant not as a way for someone to use it as a 'get out of jail free' card to add whatever they want. It's mainly there for things such as edit wars and stopping vandialism. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There have been a number of these types of games that have been nominated for AfD in the past month or two. All have been hoaxes and follow a similar pattern in which a number of people, likely sockpuppets/single-purpose accounts, come to the AfD and talk about how popular and widespread the game is. These same accounts post ridiculous statements on the articles talk page. While this particular article seems to be a little less extreme in this sense, it still certainly hints that its a hoax in the same way. I doubt the game actually exists and even if it does, an unverifiable playground game with varying rules and names certainly in unencyclopedic. --The Way 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo reliable sources of notability. A non notable web site or two that mentions this is not a reliable source.Obina 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I understand the issue of verifiability is problematic to the article, due to the nature of the game... I for one, had seen this game come up at least once a day at my high school. I'm not suggesting that my experience lends any merit to the article, but I am aware that this isn't some inside joke people just randomly decide to make an article about. I'm positive that there must be a reference to this game somewhere, someplace (even, perhaps, in a book of adolescent school games, or whatever). This isn't really something just "made up in school one day"; it was just something you were passively made aware of in adolescent, like birthday punches and wedgies. This is all from the bottom of my heart. --C.Logan 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had seen something like this going on back when I was in high school, but it's an entirely unencyclopedic topic. The article states that the only real rule is the use of the circle-hand, then lists a bunch of unsourced rule variations. Then it lists a bunch of strategies. This is all original research, and should not be allowed.
    It's quite similar to what often happens with that "The Game" article, where random people keep trying to add in their own rule variations, strategies, and various other nonsense. The difference here is, that article actually has a print source, and removing all of the OR doesn't leave us with a blank article. This article has no reliable sources, it isn't verifiable, so it has to go. WarpstarRider 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is such a well known game that if it fails Wikipedia source requirments, then there's something wrong with our source requirements. — coelacan talk — 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with them, any more than not having information on that character in the fifth episode of the third Star Trek series who appeared for 2 frames means that our inclusion requirements are wrong. Wikipedia isn't meant to be for everything that is true. -Amarkov blahedits 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting that there's a problem with notability (which is what your star trek example would refer to). This may or may not fail on notability, but that isn't the issue that's being raised. The issue here is verifiability. And I'm saying that if something which millions of people have first-hand experience with is nevertheless not verifiable by our policy, then there's something wrong with our verifiability standards. Can you at least respond to my point instead of a strawman? — coelacan talk — 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You missed my point. My point was that Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything which is true, just things which are verifiable. And if there are no sources, it is not verifiable. There's no way you can twist the definition to make things which have no sources such. -Amarkov blahedits 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, which is that it most certainly is verifiable. You already knew about it before this article, didn't you? And so does everyone else voting here (except for "The Way", apparently... what hole did they crawl out of?). If three people sit in a room together and one of them brings up some childhood game, and the other two say "oh yeah I remember that," then that's verifiability. It doesn't matter if they can't find a newspaper article or a scholarly journal on it. It's verifiable because everyone here in this vote knows that it's real. That's enough verifiability for folklorists, for example, who often have only oral history to work from. We all know it, so it's verifiable. If our standards then say that it's not verifiable, then our standards are methodologically wrong. — coelacan talk — 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While three people sitting in a room saying "Yeah I remember that" is verifiable for their purposes, Wikipedia has higher standards. Please look at WP:RS. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, it's also discussed as being called "Money Shot". Lots of people in that thread all relating their experience of it. Now if I recall AfD procedural rules, it's time for someone to tell me "ooOOooh that's not a reliable source!" — coelacan talk — 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is being mentioned on FOX's "Malcolm in the Middle" supplementary website. (I'm surprised that exists) — coelacan talk — 00:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More. — coelacan talk — 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
picture of it being played, discussion, video and discussion, discussion through this thread, picture and discussion, discussion based on "the game" website but lots of people chime in with their accounts. All of these sorts of things should count, although I'm aware that someone will say they don't. All of our own personal experiences should count too. In the case of modern folklore and childhood games, perhaps a different verifiability standard is in order. In any case the "Malcolm in the Middle" citation will undoubtedly seal it this time, but it's crazy that something this well-known could get AfD'd in the future. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm considering only the sources and information in the article. The external links do not comply with WP:RS - as a rule, blogs don't - and I'm sure that just about every Wikipedia editor know of another meaning of "money shot." B.Wind 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you overlook FOX's "Malcolm in the Middle" supplementary website? The game is being referenced in a popular TV show there, or at least within the "world" of the show. What's wrong with that source? — coelacan talk — 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not - the "journal" is actually a blog, not generally considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia. Oh, one other thing: you do realize that Malcolm in the Middle was fiction? B.Wind at 147.70.244.102 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (can't log in on work computer).[reply]
It's a fake journal, created as supplemental material for the show. It's part of the story's canon, and so it counts the same as a mention on the TV show itself would count. The fact that Malcolm in the Middle is fiction means nothing here. So what if the game is referenced in fiction? Stephen Hawking is referenced in fiction all the time, and those mentions are encyclopedic; they go to Stephen Hawking in popular culture. — coelacan talk — 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are a little off target. WP is never an acceptable source, there are no exceptions allowed. This is all spelled out in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. L0b0t 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has little to no encyclopedic value, it is not written in a global perspective, it is mostly not verifiable, and it is poorly sourced. I also doubt that it's uniformly known throughout the United States.UberCryxic 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you making any actual argument that it's got no encyclopedic value. "Not written in a global perspective" is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for article improvement. I just gave sources, one of them (FOX) that can't be called unverifiable. And I doubt that Czech bluegrass is known uniformly in the US but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. — coelacan talk — 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need to be in school for it to be Made up in school. To help our friends Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. per the Afd page.

As for the Malcom reference, while I agree it could be concidered source, the Blog would not. Also, this 'game's article needs to have multiple, reliable, independent, non-biased, third-party sources cited for it to pass the AFD. I also want to remind people, one newspaper article or one TV Show appearance does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or punching game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day This still fails WP:V since there is only one reliable (and I use that term VERY VERY loosely) source, this does not pass WP:V. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is np newspaper mentioning this 'game', and only one un-remarkable appearance in an American TV sitcom. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability.

All we have is a TV show, and a Blog (which blogs are not acceptable by wikipedia standards as Reliable Sources)

Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Where are the primary sources beyond MitM?

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

I can't see that this is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, even with specialist knowledge.

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

And...

..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article..."

I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.

HERE IS THE KICKER

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This game is certainly notable enough, but I don't think the current sources are adequate for WP:V. On the other hand, given its popularity I wouldn't be surprised if someone reputable has done a piece on the game at some point; if such a reference is found I'd surely vote keep (and cleanup). The fact that the game doesn't seem to have a standard name makes finding references difficult, unfortunately. — brighterorange (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: another verifiable television instance: season 1 episode 9 of WWE Tough Enough. Documented here, not a blog. By the way, nice essay there Brian, but don't be premature in declaring the debate over. I dispute that the MitM journal thing is a blog. It's fictional supplemental material; pieces from a "journal" by one of the characters of a show would have been included in fan club magazines before the rise of the web. And exact same content in the exact same format would not have been considered a blog eight years ago. But even without the journal, the scene happened on the show in season 2 episode 6. Now we have two television sources. That's "multiple" which is the word I see in all the notability guidelines. But! It's time to get deadly serious here, people! If we delete this article, then thousands of kids, upon entering their first year of junior high or middle school, are going to have no source for the rules except by learning them the hard way. You don't want little kids to get punched, do you?? Thnk about it, closing admin, thousands, maybe millions of punches can be spared to little kids if only you make the right choice today. Okay, now the debate's over. Seriously. — coelacan talk — 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hark, the snow is falling - despite the diatribe, still nothing from a reliable source regarding the so-called game. The fact that it "appeared" in an episode of a fictional television series does not mean that it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia any more than cranko (a fictitious game introduced in the series MASH). Without any reliable sources that ties it into something that existed before the Malcolm in the Middle episode was even written, the argument that you've been pusuing for so long doesn't even exist. Good luck on finding such an objective "reliable source," preferably one having nothing to do with fiction.B.Wind 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's like people don't read. Right above you. WWE Tough Enough, in the training room, season 1, episode 9. — coelacan talk — 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's from a blog, too. not a reliable source. B.Wind 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. — coelacan talk — 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree it isn't a reliable source. Kidding aside, even a blog such as the one posted at Sci-Fi.com from Roger Moore, creator of Battlestar Galactica, is not concidered a 'reliable source'. --Brian (How am I doing?) 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a blog. And it's part of the MitM canon, so it's on the same level as the show. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional program, that is. Time for an admin to put this puppy to bed. B.Wind 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the notability requirements that requires that every source be nonfiction. If a fictional show is referencing a real-life game, there's nothing wrong with us noting this reference. In fact it would make a good subsection of the article, "The circle hand game in fiction". There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a reference, you'll see that sort of thing all over Wikipedia. And you're still ignoring the WWE Tough Enough instance, which is a second reference on television. — coelacan talk — 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per copyright violation and per the fact that it already exists, almost word-for-word (which is a copy vio problem) in the Ballerium article. Also tagged Ballerium with {{copyvio}}. —Doug Bell talk 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olligar

Olligar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Kind of like a game guide or something. Does not look like it belongs on Wikipedia. Contested prod. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Redirect doesn't make sense as title is unlikely to be used as a search term. —Doug Bell talk 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KOTOR 2 items

KOTOR 2 items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod with the idea that this should be merged. I beg to differ. Wikipedia is not a game guide. This is gamecruft in its purest form and is straight copied out of the game's instruction booklet. Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think that this article should be removed and not merged with the kotor 2 website. As stated in the what wikipedia is NOT site, wikipedia is not a game guide and in addition to that, the number of items found in the game are quite numerous, a total of about several hundred or a thousand at least. These items would include armours, weapons, upgrades, etc. If anyone wanted a detailed description of each and every item, for example the amount of damage or defense a particular weapon or armour gives, I think they should just search the web for a gaming site dedicated to such purposes. For example, for a complete walkthrough and guide for several games including KOTOR 1 & 2, Gamebanshee.com is quite a good site in my opinion and in addition to that, it comes with the complete list of items neatly sorted out into different categories. For cheats, hints, guides, walkthroughs, FAQs (although the number of guides and walkthroughs might not be so numerous and comprehensive) and a complete list of all items, not including item specs, one can try Cheatplanet.com or Gamesradar.com. So therefore, I feel that this site is to be removed :) songjin 23:43, 8th December 2006
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Nor for that matter is it a poor quality mirror for GameFAQs. I will never understand this need folk have to recreate game-guide materials on WP when more often than not complete, well-written guides are already on GameFAQs for everyone to use. QuagmireDog 03:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords to discourage recreation. VegaDark 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.A material that doesn't have any meaning for Wikipedia.ILorbb | Talk 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda and Michelle Babin

Amanda and Michelle Babin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

prod was removed without comment by User:Amaas120. These twins are non-notable losing contestants on a reality television show. Mikeblas 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Contestants on a reality show aren't really notable as such, and this article seems to be mostly an unencyclopedic narrative of their experience on the show. Heimstern Läufer 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akihabara (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Reality shows are pretty much game shows, and we don't need a plethora of articles of contestants who have done nothing other than appear on the show and lose. Unless they won, or have done something else of notability, fine, but that does not appear to be so in this case. Such contestants can easily be listed on the main article for the series. Agent 86 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the removal of the prod was unintentional, I must've removed it while bolding their names or something. Well, since they're not really notable, and were used only as a gimmick to promote the new season, delete. --andrew|ellipsed...Speak 05:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPIA

EPIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Delete - The page is corporate marketing. VIA design and manufacture chipsets. EPIA is a marketing term for distribution of their chipsets to retail. So EPIA is not really a product, as such. I had edited this page and redirected to VIA_chipsets, putting mention of the EPIA marketing brand on the chipsets page, but user User:MureninC called this 'vandalism' and reverted. Unless a corporate marketing brand is notable, and EPIA is certainly NOT NOTABLE in terms of overall x86 market share, I really don't see why it should be allocated a separate page, when it could be slotted into an existing one, already dealing with said products. Is the WIKI here to recycle corporate press releases? Timharwoodx 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. EPIA is a series of mainboards that is very popular in the embedded market, it has nothing to do with marketing, and certainly, it is not at all related to marketing of chipsets. Claim about EPIA being "not really a product" is unfounded and downright malicious. Claim about the article being "corporate marketing" is ungrounded, for example, I've personally added a criticism section to the article describing some problems with the platform. Claim about unpopularity is misrepresented, as many models of EPIA mainboards are available from newegg.com for some time already. Also, notice that several other wikipedia.org sites already feature this article under its own name, and article on en.wikipedia.org existed since 2004. All in all, this nomination is ill-informed at best. MureninC 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MureninC violates WIKI guidelines by failing to declare himself as the primary author / sponsor of the page. What I said was in terms of overall x86 market sales volume, EPIA is insignificant - probably less than 1% of the market. The fact its listed on some internet website, does nothing to address that fact. If listing on some shopping engine is criteria for WIKI inclusion, then WIKI becomes a parts database. EPIA really is more or less irrelevant to the overall PC market - which is why its not notable. MureninC again demonstrates his total inability to differentiate between marketing and products. VIA make chipsets, the EPIA brand is reference design for marketing of the chipsets. To try and settle this, lets see what VIA has to say about this shall we?

Richard Brown (VIA's Director of International Marketing): We also have an EPIA reference design that integrates the Envy24PT.......

There you have a direct quote from VIA's Director of International Marketing, referring to EPIA not as a product, but as a 'reference design.' So even VIA's own staff say EPIA is not actually a product - its a marketing tool. Yet MureninC is convinced he knows best, and VIA's Director of International Marketing has it all wrong. Do we really have to take this debate any further? Surely VIA's Director of International Marketing can be taken as an authoritative source on whether EPIA is a marketing brand or a product? What other source would anyone care to nominate? Timharwoodx 12:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timharwoodx, please stop your ungrounded accusations. I've merely edited the article once (main contribution being a new Criticism section), and my edit was more than two years after the article was created by somebody else. Everyone, Timharwoodx has already used personal attacks against me because I've put some cleanup and split tags on the article he claims to have contributed to (VIA C3). After he noticed the tags, he started his personal attacks on the talk page of VIA C3 article, talk page of my profile, then he removed the cleanup tags and the split tags I've created, and started calling me names in his edit summaries against my edits: [16] (whereas the links are present in Template:VIA, section See also refers to the immediately useful links, but Timharwoodx failed to see that, and started calling names) and [17] (clearly, VIA C7 is intended for embedding market, and people want to know the Average TDP much more than they are interested in the Maximum TDP (specifically because Average TDP on VIA C7 is over 1000% lower than the maximum TDP), but instead of creating a new column or renaming existing one, Timharwoodx just removes my contributions and starts calling names again). Timharwoodx, please stop using personal attacks as a way to accomplish your agenda. (As far as Richard Brown goes, I don't think there is a need for any comments on his statement, as it is clearly taken out of context. If Paul Otellini says that they have a reference design of motherboards or networking adapters, does it mean that Intel doesn't produce motherboards and networking adapters? Clearly not.) MureninC 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MureninC You added numerous factual errors to the VIA section. For example, I had a column labeled 'max TDP', and you added 'average' TDP figures. You should have created a new column. Its not for me to go around tidying up your mangled broken English edits all the time. If you want to add average TDP, and I don’t disagree with that because it is useful and relevant information, add your own column, and do it yourself. But you'd need to collect it for all of the C3 processors, not just the C7, otherwise the table becomes broken as a form of comparative analysis, which is its main purpose. But you can't add average TDP to the max TDP column. Thats nonsense, as its not the same thing at all, which is why I had to delete it! Also, you were utterly confused about the C3 not understanding it was originally a WINCHIP product bought by VIA, and they swapped cores, while keeping the same marketing name. I object to someone calling my work 'one of the worst pages in the WIKI' and then riddling it with factual errors, not present in my drafts. So in fact, you started the insults, if we go over it. This is a deletion page, and it looks like EPIA will stay, I respect the community voice in any matter, but I hope you've learned not to call someone elses work 'one of the worst pages in the WIKI' - as that tends to generate a response, especially when your edits are, so often, utter nonsense, in oftentimes broken English. Anyways, you should have declared yourself as a sponsor as the EPIA page. That was a guidelines violation. Timharwoodx 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Intel don't produce motherboards, they produce processors and chipsets. So again, you validate my point with your analogy. You lack a technical understanding of the subject matter - its very obvious. Companies like ASUS, ABIT, MSI, etc, make the motherboards. Look at your PC boot screen sometime! Do some google searches. You might learn something. NVIDIA do not produce graphics cards. They make graphics chips, which third party companies turn into graphics cards. There are exceptions, 3DFX sought to make their own cards, and ATI have in periods, but normally the chip companies do not make the cards / moptherboards themselves. This is basic stuff indeed, that you clearly just don't have a clue about. I'm not here to act as your personal tutor, but if you don't understand a topic, please don't edit in it! EPIA is not really a product, its a brand for VIA chipsets, and thats completely true. So it should be an aside on the chipsets page i.e. 'this chipsets is branded as EPIA platform xxxx by VIA. Timharwoodx 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timharwoodx, everyone but you lacks a technical understanding - this is very obvious. How could you possibly live in a world of such ignorant individuals like all of us? It must be terrible! You should seriously consider opening a new wikipedia where only the privileged like yourself would have the authority to edit the articles. No marketing bullshit, no articles about stuff that does not exist, everything on as little number of pages as possible. Great idea, isn't it? Yours free! :) MureninC 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BROG

BROG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
View single debate

This article seems more like a stub than an actual article. The reference section is larger than the actual page and not to mention it is simply not notable. Most of the BROG references are other blogs of some Indiana university page. Get rid of this. Amanduhh 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete as non-notable. University research groups are rarely notable on their own (with the rare exception). BTW, those refs have links that look like blogs, but they seem to be mostly academic papers.--Kchase T 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched to weak delete, as I'm no longer so confident this isn't notable (and how to determine it in this case anyway). Based on elijawright's comment below, I'd ask that if this ends delete, the page get moved to a subpage of Talk:Blog and a note be left there. Kudos to elijawright for the disclaimer, as well.--Kchase T 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a Minute. Can we possibly just create a subject on Blog Research that will be supplemental to the Blog page? I understand that blog research is still in its infancy, but we need to have some way of maintaining its importance for continued research on Wikipedia. By doing this, BROG may still be regarded relevant information, but not enough to constitute its own page. We can have a vast survey of current research. Brirod32 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a moderately well-known research unit within an established university. We're not paper. WMMartin 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
  • Delete as per nom and Kchase Bwithh 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came across this entry when I was searching for research on blogs and found it useful, especially the list of references. Jacqui 1:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information currently available on weblog research via wikipedia is sparse, at best. The content on the page is an overview of work being done by a group of disciplinary experts; while the existence of this page may not be the end product eventually decided upon and promoted, the content *does* need to become integrated into other pages that cover weblog research more generically. Disclaimer: I am a coauthor on many of the papers referenced by this entry. elijahwright 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep This research group is at one of the most important university department for this area of the subject, and the work is notable. It has become the fashion in many areas of science & technology with multiple participants, such as high energy physics, genomics, clinical trials, and complex software studies to use research group names; as this concept is apparently unfamiliar, they keep getting AfDs. The world has changed a little, and who should better realize it than us.DGG 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What policies suggest this article should be included? That said, what policies suggest this article doesn't meet certain standards? I don't know how to apply WP:V and WP:RS in this situation specifically because it seems the page is about the research output of this group. Some of which has actually been peer reviewed by multiple people. But is that a primary source? It is a weird kind of primary source where reviewers have gone through and decided it was ok. Does this project need to be documented by a secondary source? Or just cited? --Quirex 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:Notability. Regardless of perceived importance, it is not possible to write a proper encylopedia without relying on coverage by multiple, indepedent, reliable sources. Chondrite 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only substantial argument for keeping it - the coverage - has been convincingly dismissed by Night Gyr and Brian. Sandstein 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eluxury

Eluxury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No indication of meeting WP:WEB, our notability guideline for websites. Lacks sources. Deprodded ages ago. Kchase T 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Big improvement!. My nomination has been rendered moot, as this now has a ton of sources, including plenty of non-trivial coverage to meet any notability guideline.--Kchase T 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think this should be merged with the LVMH article, as eLUXURY is one of LVMH's brands, and (almost) all of the company's different brands have their own article (Veuve Clicquot, Louis Vuitton, etc.). LVMH's other main online site, Sephora, has its own article, so I don't see why eLUXURY shouldn't have its own article as well. The article has been updated in regards to its founding, advertising methods, design, and competition, so I think it should no longer be marked for deletion. -- Vincentanton 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The strong smell of free advertising overpowers any small information content. WMMartin 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the apparently large number of links used, only one independent source provides substantial coverage of the subject as the primary focus. Many links don't even mention the subject, and are solely about competitor LuxLook, a subject that itself doesn't seem to have demonstrable notability. Other links concern fraudulent practices of 180solutions of which eLUXURY is only referred to as an example target, which is at best a peripheral topic to discuss. One link is an Epinions review, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Nothing in the article seems salvageable for a merge. Dancter 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with serious revisions. I tend to agree with the notion that significant brands should have a presence on Wikipedia. However, there are aspects of this article that bother me. The Design section: Web-site design is an ephemera unless it represents an innovation or a unique and notable achievement; for instance, if the site were the first to use the 3D-rendering to enhance the shopping experience (which is not noted) or if it was the first 'mini-boutique' to capture the public's attention (which is not noted). The Advertising section: the method and extent that a site is advertised is not in itself sufficiently notable for inclusion; further, the types of advertising employed on the site are not in themselves notable, and are additionally ephemera. The Competition section: this section maintains a thread of comparison to LuxLook.com and does not place eLuxury in an industry context, which a well composed 'competition' section should, unless these are the only two major recognized players in the specified retail domain ... which they are not or at least which is not stated. The Brands section: there should be mention here of the role that the site plays (or used to play) as an outlet for the parent company, which should likely be transplanted to here from the opening paragraph. In summary: get rid of or whittle to line-items the Design and Advertising sections, enhance the competition section and place the brands section in context and it might lose the 'aroma of salesmanship' as another commenter alluded to. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, nonstandard link formatting hides the fact that most of the links are press releases or not directly about the site, running up against WP:WEB Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still smacks of Advertising. The links are still just copies (or direct) press releases. They are not articles only and souly about the website and are not written by reliable independent third party sources (since press releases are written by the company). The site does NOT pass WP:WEB, the information does not pass WP:RS. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyneken

Wyneken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. The prod read

seems NN, and kind of like an advertisement for this particular program. Was going to de oprhan it but lets see if it survices prod

I have to agree that there does not seem to be sufficient third-party coverage to build a decent article beyond a simple description. But I will abstain for now. Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A glance at the Google search results indicates clearly that the (now expanded) stub is factually correct, so WP:V is addressed, but of course it still needs reliable sources. Sandstein 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purse Organizer

Purse Organizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally written as spam/advertisement. The article was tagged with a prod and then deproded and cleaned up. However the result is an absurd short article about a term that is not used that much (except in advertisements of course). Pascal.Tesson 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • fix it or delete it actually, purse organizers are pretty popular, but the article is so poor that it could be on wiktionary. I think we should just delete it and someone can start it over later... CchristianTehWazzit
Comment my thoughts exactly. So long as the earth is not salted, no article is better than a crummy sub-stub. Pascal.Tesson 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jackson & The Juggernauts

Stephen Jackson & The Juggernauts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

PROD removed, no Google results, no albums given, as such notability is doubtful. feydey 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Bachelor's Guide to Seduction in the Kitchen

A Bachelor's Guide to Seduction in the Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Why this was deproded is beyond be. The article is about a television "pilot shot for Arcadia Entertainment however it wasn't picked up". Obviously, of no independent interest whatsoever. No third-party coverage of course. Pascal.Tesson 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and clean up. —Doug Bell talk 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouSendIt

YouSendIt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I tagged this as spam a month ago, it's barely changed since (one word and the addition of a spam link for an unofficial yousendit forum). A month is long enough, this needs to be rewritten to demonstrate notability and remove spam or it needs to be deleted. Prefereably the latter, since it's had more than its money's worth out of Wikipedia Guy (Help!) 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpoolfc.tv Player of the Season

Liverpoolfc.tv Player of the Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is a direct copy of a list available elsewhere, and is of no general use (a link to the website the list is on would work just as well). In addition, the article may very well be a copyvio for the reason that it is a direct copy of the work done by another organization. I also don't think it's notable. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete this content and redirect to Geo-Political web-based simulator where it's already mentioned. Sandstein 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower Classic

Superpower Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It fails under the notability guidelines (see WP:WEB) just like the other, related, article I nominated a few days ago: Star Wars Diplomacy]. Furthermore, it has already been deleted for nomination once and the result was then to delete: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True World Simulator for more information on that AfD. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP, I agree with Itake on this one. Cincgreen 2010, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't argue for a delete without straying from the subject, don't even try. Itake 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and course, it should be noted User:Jobjörn is attempting to influence the AfD by recruiting people to delete[19]. Itake 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, the information provided goes to show if you are acting in good faith or not. Removing an AFD notice is not editing in good faith. Second, Please also restrain yourself from making Personal Attacks on other editors.. This was already deleted once and shows no signs of improvement from the last article. Cincgreen, can you give reasons for why you belive this should be kept? Just saying "I agree with X" doesn't sway the ending administrator's thoughts as this is a discussion not a ballot. --20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, "my reasons are the same as Itake's". You seem to be implying that one good reason can be outweighed by several bad ones. As a matter of fact, you are implying that it *is* a ballot, or at least, a race to generate "reasons". I think Itake summed it up nicely. KEEP. Cincgreen, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
comment User:Jobjörn is NOT attempting to influence the AfD by recruiting people to delete. That is actually something that the AFD rules ask users to do. Anyone that has edited the page in question should be informed using that exact text which can be found on the "How to start an AFD" section of the AFD page.
It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users).
Your comments are seriously throwing doubt on if you are truely acting in good faith. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your comments are worthless. Seems we both fail. Itake 21:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have received a warning on your talk page for personal attacks. Please refrain from making them or administrators will be involved. Personal attacks can warrent punishment from a warning to temporary or permanently being banned from wikipeida. Please do not take AFD's personal nor make personal comments about other people --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your failing has not ended. Itake 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. In response to Lima Golf, Superpower is in fact a very notable site, and I would like to know how you can call one of the most famous websites in the nationsimulator community non-notable. In response to Jobjorn, I would agree that some of the content under Superpower on the main nationsimulator page should be removed, there are many, many articles worse than this one that should be removed, so why target one of the longer, better articles?--Conquistador III 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have, in fact, made many edits to various articles on the Wikipedia, however, seldom do I log in. I did have an account with quite a few edits on it, but as I rarely log in it seems to have been deleted. Now, if you were to go to the Superpower website under the "Essays" forum, you would find a number of articles and essays on politics of the real world, and spirited debates about the said articles, which are generally sourced from an article from a major news outlet, such as BBC, and includes the author's interpretations and beliefs on the article from the news agency, and often some facts that are not included in the news article, thus conforming to the first clause of WP:WEB.--Conquistador III 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Eh, I do belive you have misunderstood WP:WEB. It is not the website that needs to cite its sources, it is the article on the website that needs to cite sources independent of the website, about the website. Do you understand? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The issue here is notability, and the contributors wishing to keep the article are not addressing this issue from the point of view of the pertinent guideline WP:BIO (as does Mus Musculus, at the very bottom of the discussion). Under these circumstances, I'm inclined to use my discretion to honour the express wish of the subject of the article and declare a consensus in favour of deletion. Sandstein 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom St Denis

Tom St Denis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable crypto software author; subject has requested page be deleted, saying, "With respect to Tom_St_Denis I did not put the page there, nor do I want a page about myself on Wikipedia. Please remove it. Same goes for LibTom_Project. I don't think Wikipedia should be polluted with small projects and people, and I certainly don't want to be known as a person to cause such pollution."[21] — — Matt Crypto 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 50k ghits for his exact name, published author with his books on amazon, reviews of said books out there....it's not a slam-dunk keep, maybe, and the article has some NPOV issues, but he seems notable enough to warrant an article. Darkspots 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Maybe in a year or two WP will be big enough it'll be a no-brainer to keep articles on marginally notable programmers/authors, but for the moment I don't think so. Also ghits is a misleading metric here, because the subject is very active poster on usenet and other forums. Arvindn 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per darksposts. — Seadog 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less talk, more deletion. -- Tom
  • Keep He might not want his page to be up there, but what counts is notability. 50k google hits is ok for a keep.. Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Son of a ..., other cryptographers have more ghits like "Brian Gladman" who has ~55khits. Are we to make pages for them as well? Just delete the damn page already. -- Tom
  • Keep Yes, in a completed Wikipedia those cryptographers should have articles as well. --Nick Roberts 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't know what are the policies, but if the subject asks to remain anonymous, it's a sign of respect to do so. Alejandro Mery 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete out of respect for the subject. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm about to apply my personal "book notability" test, which is "a book with Amazon sales rank of better than 200,000." (I picked that number when Wikipedia had about 400,000 articles, reasoning that less than half of Wikipedia's articles ought to be about books. I've stuck with it, for no good reason. However I've found it to be a good way of discriminating between "real" books and self-published and/or very obscure academic titles). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Cryptography for Developers has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #106,787. (Bignum Math at #220,533 doesn't quite make the cut). He's a real author of a real book. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going to decide to keep the listing could we at least make it a bit more informational and less ripped from the bio of my latest book? -- Tom
  • Keep. I think he is notable enough in his field. Published author, publishers provide biographies (Elsevier, O'Reilly). Needs a clean-up. QuiteUnusual 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Well fine, y'all want to keep the page. My only suggestion is that it gets a clean up and reflects who I really am (positive and negative, it should be truthful and lets face it I'm not a perfect fellow). Also, probably should merge the LibTom page into this. (Note: I still want the page to be deleted. I'm only offering more acceptable alternatives in case for some reason deletion isn't possible, which it should be because it's about me...!!! ... ok enough wiki'ing, I'm a bit drunk off of Redbull Vodka at the moment... weee...) -- Tom
Suggestion. It's not considered a good idea to edit articles about yourself, but I don't see why you couldn't draft some paragraphs or suggest some changes on the article's Talk page, Talk:Tom St Denis. Be sure to indicate any sources we could use... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't want to come off as rude. I'm just really motivated to have the articles removed. It's also probably not a good idea if I draft paragraphs about myself. That'd be kinda self-serving wouldn't it? The current article lacks details to be of interest to anyone, and even if it were flushed out with more content I still don't see what's so notable about myself to warrant an article. If you guys think you're going to hurt my feelings by voting for deletion you're mistaken. I'm the one who pushed for the deletion in the first place! -- Tom
  • Comment: it seems to me that neither the act of publishing books nor posting lots on the Internet provides notability. I'm usually happy to let sub-notable articles be, but when the subject is a non-notable living person who has expressed a wish not to be included, then we should not include them. Please be certain that this person is genuinely notable before we keep it against his wishes. — Matt Crypto 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Some local media may be doing interviews with me about my doings (setup by my employer ...). If the community wants to keep the article about me, maybe they can use the published interview(s) for material? -- Tom
    • Yep, that sort of thing is an ideal source. — Matt Crypto 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're digging your grave on the notability question, Tom. Cheers, Darkspots 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does that mean? Once and for all, I'm for deletion. But failing that, I'd at least want an article about me to be interesting :-), you know, sanity gives way to ego. -- Tom
        • I think you've been very clear, actually, Tom; nobody here doubts your earnest desire to see your article deleted. What my "digging the grave" reference to is that you are saying that new sources proving your notability are about to emerge--the best sort of sources for showing notability, that is, genuine media that's independent of you. The nominator claims that you are non-notable, which would, according to policy, be the only real reason to delete the article. You're bringing forth new evidence of your notability, thus undercutting your expressed desire. Darkspots 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, gotcha. Well, to be honest I think it's the marketting folk at my job who talked the local media into it. Though they do seem intrigued about my politics and how I "used the Internet to build a Career." I'm not trying to say what I've been doing for the last five years was trivial or unimportant. I just have to question, in the face of all the other OSS projects out there, how unique and notable it is. It'd be like if you were a really good coal miner. Even if you did a good job, worked hard, etc, do you deserve a wiki article? The only real thing that stands out between myself and other OSS developers is my desire to release to the public domain instead of copyleft. -- Tom
            • We take these things one at a time. Plenty of people argue (these are folks arguing to keep their articles, you understand) that there are many articles of, say, bands just as notable as theirs. Doesn't matter, all you can evaluate is the article in front of you. Same argument applies to Tom St Denis, just in reverse. And, coal miners are not inherently notable, they have to do something truly unexpected to achieve notice. Guys who write books, on the other hand--keep your nose clean, work hard, get the reviews, you get a wiki article. Plus, Tom, you've got a catchy name for your product. Never underestimate the power of a catchy name. Darkspots 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've added info to the talk page if you guys want to rebuild the article and keep it. At least with some details it'll be worth having the slightly elevated profile around.
  • Delete. Looking at the stuff Tom has done, I'm inclined to say that he's borderline notable at present. What sways me towards deletion is his pleasing modesty.
Tom, my own view is that a really good coal miner could certainly qualify for an article here. In assessing people's work-related notability I look for two things: first, have they accomplished something by their own efforts that makes them stand out in their field ? and/or second, are they recognised by their peers, and by the broader public, for their work ? So a coal miner could certainly qualify, perhaps if he were highly productive ( for example, we have an article on Aleksei Grigorievich Stakhanov, who was noted for his zealous workmanship ( though there are also doubts as to precisely what happened on that historic day ) ), or perhaps if he in some other way performed at the peak of his profession. The same is obviously true for any other person in any other field of human endeavour. Right now it appears, from the comments of people more expert in the field of computers than I, that you are doing a great job. Your own opinion is that you're not quite unique or notable enough, though, and ( even allowing for some gentlemanly modesty ) you're probably one of the best judges of that, so I'm prepared to go with deletion for the moment. But watch out: people know your name, and are talking about you, so you're definitely at risk of having an article at some stage ! With best wishes for the future. WMMartin 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. The way I see it, being a bit over-modest is always a good idea. It's all too tempting to drop your guard and let the ego soar. As another pointed out, usually people are fighting to keep their vanity pages because they lost perspective and think they're really worthy of notability. I'd rather lean towards the side of caution and due process. To be honest, my notability would be better proven when all those, whom I presumably (*) touched through my efforts come forward to offer testimony, then by simply listing a couple of books and a URL to some source code. I admit it seems odd that I argue for deletion instead of keeping it. It isn't because I'm anti-social or self-destructive. Just that I have enough respect for what Wikipedia is attempting to not let my personal ego interfere with the process. (* based on the concensus assumption I'm currently notable). -- Tom
  • Comment It's refreshing when a subject of a wikipedia article not only takes interest in wikipedia but also keeps a level head when they learn about their page and that it may be kept against their wishes. I do hope that tom sticks around and updates other wikipedia articles as well. I am sure he has vast experiance in different areas that would definately be a big help to wikipedia. On a site note: I admire the stance to publish into the PD instead of Copyleft. That alone should be a point of notability and what science/research is all about. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to a few articles already (not my own :-)) including the article about ToorCon and the list of Cryptographers. I don't have a wiki user but I'm considering making one... -- Tom
  • Comment What's the call? I'm still in favour of deletion on non-notability grounds. I think we should close this discussion once and for all. I'm not closed to the idea in the future about an article (if the circumstances warrant it), but as I see it now this isn't the case. -- tom
    • Deletion debates aren't usually concluded earlier than five days after they start, which means there's some seven hours or so before this one becomes eligible to be closed. The article will almost certainly be kept, though, given that there's no consensus to delete. — Matt Crypto 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there enough citable resources to fill out a competent article? I think if you really press some of the voters here for wiki-worthy material they may realize the folly of their ways. I'll bet most voted to keep out of some misguided attempt to avoid hurting my feelings or something. As it stands now, the only published material with my name on it are the two books. And aside from the prefaces of both there isn't much material that discusses Tom or his wacky LibTom Projects. Again, I encourage people to re-evaluate the situation. -- Tom

Merge The LibTom Project page is about his software. This page is about him as a software writer which seems to be the only thing he is currently notable for. Assuming that he systematically becomes more notable for other things a higher quality article could be compiled. For now it seems as though his claim to fame is as an "upcomming cryptographer" and as such could be mentioned in articles about cryptographers and in a page about his software. Paul Hjul 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the LibTom Project AfD currently stands at 9-0 in favour of deletion article has been deleted. — Matt Crypto 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that deletion, and the recent modifications to the article, doesn't it seem legitimate to process the deletion request with the utmost haste? This is the sort of information people can find with Google and has no place in an Encyclopedia. -- Tom
  • Delete. One of the criterion of WP:BIO is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The article establishes that he is published, but at least two of the books are public domain projects and I cannot find any evidence that any of his works meet the requirement of being subject to multiple independent reviews. Mus Musculus 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kchase T 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Pearls Nursery School

Excel Pearls Nursery School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of Notability. Not encyclopedic. NPOV. No available references. It's a nursery school in India. Deltopia 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More from nominator. I should have pointed out WP:SCHOOL and said that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines there -- it has not been a subject of multiple, verifiable published works (4 google hits, including 2 from wikipedia), and it has not received press for being nationally distinctive. Still learning how the system works; sorry. Deltopia 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete You are right. This fails WP:RS, WP:SCHOOL, and WP:V. If most grade schools can not make the cut, why would a nursery school? --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I realise that a school in India may have been given significant coverage in non-English language sources that none of us know about, but I think it's safe to say this is highly unlikely for any nursery school. The article doesn't establish the notability of the school, and the only mentions it has received in newspapers (the ones with archives open for Google searches, anyway) [22] [23] [24] are very trivial (apparently the school hosts fancy dress contests from time to time). Extraordinary Machine 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously notable writer, rewritten to eliminate copyvio/gushiness. NawlinWiki 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kimmel Smith

Robert Kimmel Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing of note provided. A bio. Akihabara 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of clichés in roleplaying games

List of clichés in roleplaying games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Is not notable. Pichu0102 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full Disclosure: Not that it changes my mind or anything, but in fairness it should be noted that several AfDs provided above by Night Gyr resulted in No Consensus, and at least one with a keep. I don't think it's accurate to claim a precedent for deletion is asserted by those examples. But without sources, I still say delete away. -- Antepenultimate 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. —Doug Bell talk 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam K Francis

:Sam K Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD) Fails WP:V. Unable to locate anything that supports the claims of notability. No mention of him on ABC's website under Sam Francis, Sam K. Francis or Samuel Kensinger Francis. Not listed as a host on the Sirius website and no mention of him at the only thing I could find that mentions any personnel for HERO magazine. Otto4711 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn per my comments under Samuel Kensinger Francis, provided that the two articles are merged and properly sourced. Otto4711 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per no challenges and withdrawn nomination. —Doug Bell talk 12:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kensinger Francis

Samuel Kensinger Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Suffers all the same WP:V problems as Sam K Francis which is unsurprising since it's the same person, but suffers the additional difficulty of having been written by the subject's domestic partner, so WP:COI problems by proxy. Otto4711 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A CHALLENGE TO OTTO4711's PROPOSED DELETION FROM SAMUEL KENSINGER FRANCIS

This is Samuel Kensinger Francis writing. I will first address the questions about the veracity and verifiability of my magazine, HERO, which I published and co-founded in 1997-2001. I will include several articles on the internet which verify my role as such, and will be happy to supply Wikipedia with printed copies of the bound edition of the magazine if necessary to prove same. Finally, I question the motives of the user OTTO4711 and her reasons for proposing deletion—seems she has an WP:COI problem of her own.

HERO MAGAZINE AND PROOF OF ROLE, 1997-2001

For the record, I have printed mastheads from HERO Magazine in my possession which verify my co-founding and as Publisher of HERO Magazine from 1997-2001. In addition, a complete volume of the periodical is stored in perpetuity by the New York Public Library and also the Library of Congress. I can also guide you to the following articles elsewhere on the internet which verify my role as Publisher and Co-Founder:

http://directmag.com/mag/marketing_straight_talk_gay/

EXCERPT FROM DIRECT MAGAZINE

"While some analysts see a trend toward nationalization of the marketing media as a reflection of what's happening in the mainstream and as a reflection of the greater acceptance of the lesbian and gay market, there are still some small "pop and pop" operations running. One example is Sam Francis, the founder and publisher of HERO, a magazine for gay men who are more interested in a relationship than in a lifestyle.

The publication began as a Web site, but turned into a print product. Despite its origins, banner ads have not worked for Francis to acquire subscribers. Instead he uses a mix of rented mailing lists, inserts in gay-male specific catalogs, and such Web-based subscription services as enews.com. His own site can also accept subscriptions, which he sees as an important gateway to the market.

A 200,000-piece mailing gets a 2% response, with a special "Gay Wedding Guide for Men" issue providing a 60% response spike. While his current subscriber base is 14,000, Francis believes his marketing mix can bring the base up to 100,000 in 2001, which he says will make it the gay magazine with the largest circulation in the country."

OTHER VERIFYING SOURCES/ARTICLES—CLICK THEM

http://www.nyblade.com/2003/6-27/arts/dish/dish.cfm

http://web.mac.com/samfrancis/iWeb/Site/Big%20Brother%202.html

http://www.unzipped.net/features/0302/U0302_sam_cover.asp

http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=801

http://www.presspassq.com/detail.cfm?id=2#Transitions

http://shanesnipes.com/simon/bloggerthought.html

http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~hero/links.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.heromag.com


REGARDING THE WIKIPEDIA USER 'OTTO4711' and her WP:COI

The user OTTO4711 has no e-mail address for direct contact. I question the user "OTTO4711's" motives in proposing my article for deletion. If you'll check their browsing history, he/she also browses Wikipedia for other notable gay celebrities (and personal friends of mine), including Chip Arndt & Reichen Lehmkuhl (of the Amazing Race), my mother in law, actress Conny Van Dyke, and my partner Bronson Page, "proposing them for deletion" for superfluous reasons. This user seems to just be going through and editing the entries of my friends and familiy specifically, and seems to have an axe to grind. I respectfully request that this user's account be de-activated as I believe SHE has a WP:COI.

SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE TO DELETION

My accomplishments in founding HERO Magazine, an award-winning, national publication (who's entry is also in Wikipedia) stand for itself and are unqualified. The entry is relevant and should not be deleted.

—Posted by Samuel Kensinger Francis 12/08/06

Wow. That was pretty impressive. Way to cast aspersions with no foundation in fact whatsoever there, Sam. If you actually check my browsing history, you'll see that I have thousands of edits to articles regarding gay people, gay movies, gay topics, etc. and try to better them. I've written several dozen articles on the topic. Plus, I'm a big queer so I have no problem with gay people in general.
I proposed your two articles for deletion because of issues of verifiability. I stumbled across your article because it was in Category:LGBT people from the United States. It struck me as odd that a home improvement show like Extreme Makeover Home Edition would have a personal trainer so I checked the website and found no verification of your affiliation with the program under multiple versions of your name. Similarly I checked the Sirius radio page and found no verification that you "host a fitness program." I could also find no verification of your affiliation with HERO. You have now provided verification of some of the information that is included in the article and I therefore withdraw my nomination for deletion. The next thing that should happen is that an editor who is not you and not related to you by blood or marriage should merge the two articles on you into one and properly source it. I will not do so because although I certainly bear neither you, your spouse, your mother in law nor any of your friends and relations the slightest malice, your suggestion of some sinister ulterior motive on my part leads me to take a total hands-off approach.
I have removed the equals signs that you placed above your response because placing them there causes your response to become an entry in the day's table of contents separate from the nomination itself and it should not be. Otto4711 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just to address your somments about your mother-in-law's article, I made four edits to it, two of which were minor cosmetic changes and one of which was to restore something that I had removed after further research turned up a source fo it. I never had any quibble with her article and I think that I improved it. Otto4711 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The NYPL and the Library of congress have permanent copies of almost anything, and if all there is of this is one volume, and that's the only places there are, that puts it at the very lowest level of notability for a journal. I don't like being bullied, so I tried to skip over that part and just look for any information. (The web cites, by the way, are from suitable places for unverified press releases)DGG 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPLY BY SAMUEL KENSINGER FRANCIS TO DGG RE: HERO MAGAZINE

As you are a librarian, please note that HERO Magazine was named "One of the 10 Best New Magazines" by Library Journal, one of your industry's own publications. In addition, HERO was named "One of the 10 Best Magazines" by magazine expert and University of Mississippi journalism professor Samir Husni, who is also known as "Mr. Magazine" and widely considered one of the most authoritative voices on magazines in the world. HERO was subscribed to by dozens of public libraries around the United States, and the world. SamFrancis 12:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Multiple Citations Found to Support Mr. Francis' Entry Gosh, not sure what all the fuss is here. I researched extensively and found more than 30 other articles dating back to August, 1997 verifying Sam's claims. Listing only the notables here:

1. Judy Weider (19 Aug. 1997, pg. 63) "The Best & Brightest Under 30: Sam Francis" The Advocate
2. Lynn Smith (15 March 1998, Life & Style) "For the Man In Your Life" Los Angeles Times
3. Elaine Herscher (18 April 1998, pg. 1A) "Newest Gay Magazines Put Focus on The Family" San Francisco Chronicle
4. Ron Belgau (1 April 1998) "Profile in Couarge: In Los Angeles, 23-year-old Sam Francis has a new vision for gay america" Oasis Magazine
5. Eric Hunter (4 June 1998) "Will Monogamy Sell?" Cincinnati CityBeat
6. David Heitz (23 June 1998, pg. 48) "Hip to Be Square: A New Magazine Targets Young Men with 'Hot Monogamy' The Advocate
7. Wayne Hoffman and Ernie Glam (17 July 1998, Pg. 21) "Sex & Sensibility: Gay Media Turn Away From Sex to Woo Advertisers and Attract New Readers" New York Blade News
8. Ernie Glam (April 1998 pg. 9A) "HERO offers readers a pro-monogamy alternative" New York Blade News
9. Wayne Hoffman (24 July 1998, pg. 29) "Sex & Sensibility' The Washington Blade
10. V. Dion Haynes (30 July 1998, Tempo Pg. 1) "Two New Magazines Offer Help and Guidance to Alternative Families" The Chiicago Tribune
11. Michael Gardunio (26 Aug 1998, Pg. 12) "You're My HERO" Q Ink Northwest
10. No Byline (03 Sep 1998) "Magazines Target Alternative Families" The Des Moines Register
12. Judith Silberfield and Thomas Doustaly (September 1998) "États-Unis" Tetu Magazine
13. No byline (September 1998, pg. 27) "Helpful Sources: HERO Magazine" Our World: International Gay & Lesbian Travel Magazine
14. No byline (Aug. 1999) "HERO Worship" Attitude Magazine
15. Anne M. Russell (28 Jan 1999) "Finding Funding" Folio Magazine
16. L.M. (Oct. 1998) "New Magazines: HERO" Folio Magazine
17. Rex Wockner (25 June 1999) "Media Report" Fab! Magazine
18. No Byline (Spring 1999) "Paging Ahead" min magazine
19. Dan Savage (June 1999, pg. 62) "Faithlessly Yours" OUT Magazine
20. Dan Egan (03 Jan 2000, pg. 1A) "One-Time Utah Whiz Kid Makes Waves With a Unique Magazine" The Salt Lake Tribune
21. Michael Colford (15 Oct 1999, pg. 114) "HERO: The Magazine for the Rest of Us" Library Journal
22. Kate Fitzgerald "Promo Spotlight: Gay title 'HERO,' Altoids join up for traveling kissing booth" Advertising Age
23. Michael Colford (1 May 2000, pg. 51) "Best New Magazines of 1999" Library Journal
24. Eileen P. Gunn and Kate Kitzgerald (19 June, 2000, pg. 61) "Highly Targeted Interests Drive [Gay] Magazine Growth" Advertising Age'
25. No Byline (August 2000, pg. 7) "Magazine Publishes Wedding Guide For Men" Stonewall News Northwest
26. James Brady (No Date, pg. 38) "Brady's Bunch" Advertising Age'
27. Sean Maher (31 Aug. 2000) "Gay Games Announces New Sponsor" Sydney Star Observerl
28. Lou Chibbaro Jr. (9 Nov. 2001, pg. 14) "Gay Media Businesses Weigh Impact of Sept. 11" The Washington Blade
28. Samir Husni (Jan 1999) "One of the Most Notable Magazine of 1998: HERO, The Magazine For the Rest of Us" Samir Husni's 1999 Guide to New Consumer Magazines'
29. Darrin Frei (April 1998, pg. 70) "Sam Tyson: From Publishing to Porn" Genre Magazine
30. Dean Keefer (July 2004, pg. 58) "Sam Tyson Constructs the Ultimate Fantasy" Playgirl
31. Dean Keefer (Summer, 2005, pg. 44) "Body Work: Handsome and Handy, Sam Tyson Constructs the Ultimate Fantasy" Playgirl Magazine's MEN AT WORK Special Edition #50

Maritoon 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BIO and these additional citations from reputable sources denote notability. Also, Otto4711 has withdrawn the WP: AFD nomination.
  • Strong Keep Two additional citations about this person found:

1. Peter Scarlet (03 May 1991, pg. B3) "Students Profit From Own Businesses, Win Entrepreneur Contest" The Salt Lake Tribune
2. No Byline (01 April 1991, pg D6) "Governor to Honor Young Businessmen" The Salt Lake Tribune
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.77.6 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was KEEP and MERGE with Gonzaga University. Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzaga Bulletin

Gonzaga Bulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a particulary notable paper. Article was written by user Samfrancis, who, coincidentally I'm sure, is featured in the article as Samuel Kensinger Francis. Otto4711 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't read the articles on the other papers, but the existence of one aricle has no bearing on whether another article should exist. The question is whether the subject of the article is notable enough to stand on its own. I nominated it in part because of its obvious ties to the two articles on Sam Francis that I also nominated. I have now withdrawn those nominations but I still question whether this topic is sufficient to stand on its own. Otto4711 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The campus newspapers are in [[27]] and Gonzaga is a notable enough university...I'm open to being convinced otherwise...the two Samuel K. Francis articles, on the other hand, look to me like vanity articles, all the more so because of the articles' subject's angry response to the proposed deletion of "his" articles. Dragomiloff 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gonzaga University as the stubbish article was started by a former editor, a clear conflict of interest per WP:COI. B.Wind 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge because if the university is there, thats where its paper goes unless the paper is notably separately, which in this case it doesn't seem to be. I'd be glad to look at some of the other 180, for that matter.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kchase T 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bronson Page

Bronson Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable actor whos credits consist of "Boy" and "NATO Officer," article was started by subject's domestic partner Samuel Kensinger Francis (who was returning the favor that Bronson did by writing his) so WP:COI by proxy. Otto4711 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'non-notable' acting in Blue Sky was notable enough to qualify me for SCREEN ACTOR'S GUILD eligibility, and give me a significant part (especially for a young actor) in a choreographed scene with JESSICA LANGE who won an OSCAR for the role. Are we to delete every actor's first films? IMDB certainly finds sufficient reason for inclusion. The suggestion that my entry is an invalid 'favor' because my domestic partner edited it is not only ludicrous, it's insulting. Are wives, husbands, friends not allowed to contribute? This edit seems unfairly, personally motivated. Who are you, editor? - Bronson Page

  • Who am I? I'm just a little girl from Little Rock, who lived on the wrong side of the tracks. But I stand by this nomination. If in future you continue to get acting work or your rock opera gets produced and there are multiple independent third-party sources to that effect, I will very much enjoy reading the resulting article. As for having supposedly gone around with you before, to the best of my knowledge I'd never heard of you before today and have never encountered you. Otto4711 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (except for the speculation at the end). The Screen Actors Guild is an AFL-CIO affiliated Labor Union with over 120,000 members. Membership does little to assert notability. You're right, every actor does have a first film: That does nothing to change the fact that not every actor will be included at Wikipedia. Please see WP:BIO; the section about actors isn't very far down, and this entry clearly fails those criteria. Note, please, that Wikipedia is not IMDB; we already have IMDB for that. Finally, the above rant only validates the WP:COI concerns raised. Nothing here is meant to suggest that you won't one day be a truely notable actor; when you are, no doubt someone else will go through the trouble of writing an article about you. I wish you luck. -- Antepenultimate 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have raised an objection, except for the fact that I've gone 'round with this user before. So before you dismiss this as 'rant', know that my argument, however passionate, has grounds. 'Notable' seems a subjective term here that needs clarification. Do you have clarification for 'notable' as it is used in Wikipedia?

Per your own description of notability which is helpful: "Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." So IMDB's research and confirmation of my information isn't enough then? Please reply. Thanks.

  • Comment. Firstly, Notability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Not long ago, I also argued over the percieved objective nature of Notability here, but the more I poke around the numerous guidelines, and the more I experience the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia, the more I have come to respect those guidelines. For an overview of notability guidelines as it applies to people, please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). It includes very specific criteria for actors. Second: IMDB is a webpage, not an author, scholar, or journalist. To give you a personal example of why IMDB is never used as a test for notability: Friends of mine in college produced a no-budget film, based on a video game. This film can be found on IMDB[28]; furthermore, as a result of this listing, every single person in that film also has a listing as well. Now, these are my friends, so believe me when I say: They are not actors. And their inclusion at IMDB does not signify anything beyond the fact that they managed to pull together a film that has sold a couple of hundred copies at various gaming conventions. I hope this has settled some of your concerns. If you would like to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so at my talk page, so as to not further clutter this AfD debate. -- Antepenultimate 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find how to talk to you. Fine. I'm resolved with deletion. I'd delete it myself if your bot didn't keep recovering it. However, nice casting of aspersions on OTTO4711's part, making basis for deletion that my DP and I were 'doing favors' for each other by contributing. No, that's not subjective at all.

The reason the article should be deleted is not that your DP wrote it. The reason the article should be deleted is that the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. There are specific criteria for actors that establish notability, specifically: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography5
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements"
You simply do not meet the criteria for notability for an actor. As a completely separate issue, your contributing to an article about yourself is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of the autobiography guidleine. Your DP contributing to an article about himself is a clear conflict of interest and autobiography problem. Either of you writing about the other is also a conflict of interest. Neither WP:COI nor WP:AUTO is in and of itself grounds for deleting an article but it is a valid concern to raise about an article, and your and Sam's outbursts, ill-feeling and spurious attribution of bad faith to me as a result of properly tagging your articles is a perfect illustration of why individuals should not be writing articles about themselves or their loved ones. Otto4711 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines and the above conversation also illustrates an obvious conflict of interest. General rule of thumb; if you aren't important enough for people you don't know to make an article about you, you probably aren't notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --The Way 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice against recreating with the caveat of requiring reliable sources for every entry. The numerous concerns over liability are a reason to be careful and require sources, not a reason to not have the article. The arguments against having this as only a list of names, with no additional annotations are valid—if recreated it must provide information and/or context beyond that provided by the category. —Doug Bell talk 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicted child sex offenders

List of convicted child sex offenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pointless list and potential troll magnet. It duplicates Category:Convicted child sex offenders, which has been fully populated with every article in this list, so no information whatsoever would be lost.Proto::► 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, but rename to include the country these people live in. Markb 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: list of convicted murderers? List of convicted regiciders? List of convicted homejackers? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists are not superseded by categories, despite the efforts of some to claim that this is some sort of Wikipedia policy. The fact that an article is a troll magnet is irrelevant to whether it's kept or not (otherwise we'd be deleting Adolf Hitler, for example). However, it should be restricted to those who have been convicted of an offence (as the title states), not just those charged with one (as the intro says). There are no "legal ramifications" to listing those convicted of an offence under the law of any country. Conviction is a fact, not a POV. -- Necrothesp 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above: Wrong. Many countries have legislation that deems a conviction 'spent' after a period with no other offending, i.e. it is as if the conviction never occured and the convict ceases to be a convict. It would then be a criminal offence to claim that the person was an offender. See, for example, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK (unfortunately not covered in Wikipedia). There are similar laws in other places. Emeraude 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What absolute twaddle. The fact of a person's conviction is in the written record. What are you suggesting? That all newspapers have to expunge the stories about a conviction from their archives on pain of criminal charges against the editors? That librarians have to go around with a black pen and cross out the records of the trials from the law reports? A spent conviction merely means you're not legally obliged to declare it (and even then, you would have to in some circumstances, such as applying for a job with children or as a police officer). It doesn't mean you haven't been convicted or you're not a previous offender. It certainly doesn't mean people can be prosecuted for saying you were convicted of such and such a crime if that statement is true. In any case, convictions for serious offences are never spent. A conviction can only become spent if the sentence was a maximum of 2½ years in prison. -- Necrothesp 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From [29] "The Act makes it an offence for anyone with access to criminal records to disclose spent convictions unless authorised to do so..... It might be possible for a person with spent convictions to sue for libel anyone making allegations about spent convictions, if he or she can prove that the allegation was made with malice." Emeraude 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come one, of course it's an offence for anyone with privileged access to sensitive information to make it public unless authorised to do so, and criminal records are privileged information. That doesn't mean that information that's already in the public domain doesn't stay there. Convictions are always in the public domain since trials are public and reported in the press. If someone has been convicted it therefore is in the public domain and remains so. It isn't removed from the public domain after their conviction becomes spent. Therefore it is not libellous for Wikipedia to report it. Neither does that webpage say it is, if you actually read it properly. -- Necrothesp 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 'anyone' means anyone, not people with privileged access. Of course newspaper archives etc aren't blanked out, I never suggested they were. The point is that a complainant who claims that disclosure of a spent conviction was malicious has a case and the only defence is 'in the public interest'. This exercised the minds of journalists when the Act was passed as you can imagine. Whatever, an interesting side discussion. Emeraude 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and the tendency in the US seems to be the other direction. DGG 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blahedits 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Where exactly does it say to delete a list when you create a category? I would like to see where that is written because it is nonsensical. Wikipedia is not a directory, and has no need for one sentence articles, yet every list in Wikipedia is a directory, as are categories. They are navigational aides, like the index in a book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steven Fruitsmaak and Dstanfor. feydey 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with condition - the allegations must be sourced. This list seems useful.Bakaman 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons above and because Wikipedia is not a sex offender registry Dragomiloff 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to have a list and a category Akihabara 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to advocate instruction creep or anything, but is there some kind of policy on lists vs. categories? User A: "If it's got a category it should be a list." User B: "It has a category. It shouldn't have a list." This is the same circular reasoning used on school articles, radio tower articles, malls, etc - "It's a X, of course it's notable" vs. "it's a X, of course it's not notable." --Dmz5 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list offered something over a category, like one-line descriptions of their crimes, it would have value, but this one has nothing but a list of names, making it entirely redundant with categories. Delete Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exacty. If this list would either (a) source allegiations individually and provide dates, or (2) give detail and/or background, it might have added value to a list. As it is, it is unmaintainable and too much of a vandal magnet. Delete-- Marcika
  • Delete There are so many reasons this is wrong for WP... it's a magnet for WP:OR, vandalism, and possibly legal threats to the foundation. Also, the list is completely unsourced. Also, Wikipedia is not a sex offender list, especially given the sheer number of sex offenders. Think of WP having a list of people convicted for GTA. Not going to happen. On the other hand, you shouldn't delete lists because a corresponding category exists. Lists (in general, not necessarily this particular list) are able to communicate much more information about a topic than a category ever will. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 100% unencyclopedic. WTF. --- RockMFR 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is wikipedia trying to censor this? Got something to hide guys? --61.114.193.19 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete libellous - is this even legal? Point taken, argument for deletions stands, however. It's unencyclopedic and can only attract the addition of articles which violate WP:OR and WP:BLP. Also per User:Night Gyr and User:Dmz5 above. --Strothra 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why on earth should it be libellous or illegal? If these people are convicted sex offenders then I can assure you it isn't libellous to say so. A statement is only libellous if it is untrue. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The list itself is not libellous, but by having this easily editable list, it is as though Wikipedia is "inviting" vandals to add names of targetted individuals, such as disliked teachers, celebrities or public figures. On the contrary, if the only way a name is to appear on a list is to have a correctly categorised article for the person (if it can survive the new pages review which is far better patrolled than recent changes) then it is far less likely to contain libellous statements. LittleOldMe 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Having patrolled pages for vandalism, this page is so open to abuse; its not even funny. All it takes is a bored schoolkid with an axe to grind, a computer, an extra litigious innocent person and a lawyer with $$$$ in his eyes - Wikipedia foundation can have it's figurative pants sued off. Especially since arguing the matter in this forum, the mods are made aware of the legal implications. --Eqdoktor 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see absolutely no purpose for this list. As above, there is a category for subjects who are convicted offenders AND notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not and should never be a sex offender registry. That's not our job. —bbatsell ¿? 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The list is utterly pointless, and potentially dangerous - bear with me:-
    Either - a) you add a name to the list when it has an article, or b) you add it to the list when it doesn't have an article.
    If it does have an article, then it can go in the equivalent category, so the list entry is pointless. If it doesn't have an article, then you're adding names, very probably of living people, to a list entitled 'Convicted child sex offenders', without any kind of referenced article to back up such a claim. Think about the implications of that before suggesting this list should be kept. Proto::► 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is perfectly possible to add references to a list! -- Necrothesp 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      So what's the point of featuring names in a list if they don't have an article? Proto::► 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      To encourage articles to be created. You seem to be under the misapprehension that everybody who is notable enough to have an article already has one. This is patent rubbish. If that were the case then why are we bothering to edit at all? The addition of new articles and the expansion of existing ones is the whole point to us being here. -- Necrothesp 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have a name and a reference, you have enough material to write a stub and categorize it. If you don't have enough material for a stub, why are we including it in wikipedia? We're not a directory of every criminal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Darn it, Gyr made my point before I could get back to make it, and after I did all the hard work setting it up, too. Bah. To make it anyway - You have a name, and you want to put it on this list because you havea burning need to point out this guy is a convicted child sex offender. There's no article for this heinous person, so you can only put the name on such a list with a reference (as frankly, if you didn't, someone will block you). So, you find a reference. If you have found a reference, you can write a stub. If you have written a stub, you can put the stub in the category. If you have the stub in the category, the list remains pointless trollbait. Proto::► 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Remember the Dragnet disclaimer of "The names are changed to protect the innocent"? Suppose Wikipedia carries such an exhaustive list. What do you suppose would happen if an innocent person with the same name as one on the list is found? What would happen if something illegal happened to that person as a result of that Wikipedia listing (after all, are we going to list addresses, too? I'm sure that would be illegal in some countries)? This is one HUGE can of worms that we need not open. I repeat and emphasize: delete and salt as keeping it could have huge problems for the Foundation. B.Wind 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever may be the crime, this list would be somewhat vindictive, even without the considerations raised by B.Wind. A category holds articles that hace to be documented. A list can have red links,which is this case would be altogether unfair.DGG 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:NOT#DIR, also some these people are still alive hence falls under an extra strong dangerous dose of WP:LIVING, with WP:V issues. ANY Vandalism of this page for even a second will make Wikipedia liable for a ton of libel damages as pointed out above. Insane to keep this list. --Eqdoktor 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the page will inevitably be vandalised and then we are smack in the middle of a slander lawsuit. --Yamla 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another good example of a worthless category but a potentially valuable list. What this needs is annotation to make it a useful resource for readers. Also, those users concerned with lawsuits and the like are way off base, since for the time being the identical category exists. What prevents someone from adding Mother Theresa or Walt Disney to the category? Nothing...or I should say the same thing that prevents names from getting added to this list: user oversight. Learn to love it because that's what makes wikipedia work. --JJay 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal Khashan

A prior deletion was overturned at DRV and is now here for reconsideration. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

except, about copyright' a list of someone's books is not subject to copyright in the US. It is a mere compilation, without any intellectual labor, and so would be a list of their articles. Even a book full of bibliographies, if one copied the whole book, would still be legal in the US; the case in point was copying a phone book. Before saying copyvio, learn about copyright a little. WP is a place to start. DGG 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued on user talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(discussion from both of us--and comments are welcome) a good choice by trialsanderrors , as it makes little practical difference to the immediate issue. DGG 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kchase T 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2Pac TBA

2Pac TBA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete; Page violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Mhking 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kchase T 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Marchia

Joseph Marchia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable. No sources. 5 Unique hits for the name on Google, 1 from this page...4 that appear to be for another person. Speedy tag and Prod removed by IP. Prod removed with false edit summary. Onorem 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 35 Langley. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coghlan Elementary School

Coghlan Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-not'able Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I do not oppose redirect to School District 35 Langley, but I might suggest many of the schools linked to from that page need similar redirects. And is the district itself notable enough? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with nom Baccyak4H that almost all of the other thirty-one elementary school articles that are linked from the School District 35 Langley article should be redirected back to there as well. Primary schools are not inherently notable. School districts themselves probably are. -- Satori Son 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records

Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As I looked through other game show articles: I see NO other records pages. Deal or No Deal shouldn't be the first to start this trend. As I stated in the other Deal or No Deal AFDs a while ago: make a gameshow Wiki and put this information there. It certainly shouldn't be here. Encyclopedia: not a guide to game show records. RobJ1981 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the proper place for trivia like this is on a fan site. Not a general purpose encyclopedia. - fchd 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not original research or a copyright violation, it is written from a neutral point of view. It is not a directory or an indiscriminate selection of information, for editors select the categories they deem notable. "Trivia" is the view of other contributors to this discussion, but I genuinely do not see how this article violates any clause of WP:NOT, or any other clause of WP:DELETE Eludium-q36 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the show's page, after slimming down the info. All of the facts may be verifiable, but they're not all encyclopedic. Inner Earth 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is this like the deal or no deal massacre? I think we should keep at least SOME of the deal or no deal articles!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kchase T 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podminions

Podminions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This podcast channel, created by the pupils of Kings Norton Boys School, makes no claim to notability. Retroactively contested proposed deletion. ➥the Epopt 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete this page. I have explained why to The Epopt. There is no reason for deletion. If it had no use on Wikipedia why would I of created it --Lyer
  • Speedy Delete — I prodded this and it was deleted, I endorse the prior deletion still, this fails our web notability and qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7 - none of the links are independent of the boys school and the podcast. Fails WP:WEB. B.Wind 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it need to be deleted. What is the point of deleting it. It says on the deletion sign that

it needs to be improved. How can I improve it to fit the standards you think it needs. --Lyer


1.The page is not run by the owner of the Podminions website.

2.The page has been noticed by Podminions, and they have thanked me for the page.

There are a lot of pages that are a few sentences long. I think you should start with deleting them, instead of a decent page. Why choose this page to be delete. Do you just randomly chose a page and decide to delete it.

Lyer

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

The result was delete.--Kchase T 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Shirazi

Darian Shirazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Appears to be a bio in violation of WP:COI, with no references affirming notability. A google search turns up a small number of hits indicating that the individual is real[32], but I do not believe that the notability standard at WP:BIO is met. --Elonka 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Philly Screwjob

South Philly Screwjob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unsourced article on what seems to be just some minor plotline from professional wrestling. 143 Google hits, only 27 unique, almost all for wrestling forums. Metros 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedied and salted. -- Steel 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porn613

Porn613 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nom - AdverSPAMcruft (fails WP:CORP); speedied once already; not especially notable for a porn site (see Alexa ratings) Rklawton 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of minced oaths

List of minced oaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed by IP. Original reason for prod: Useless listcruft, with potential to grow on forever. - ∅ (∅), 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstorm Interactive

Seems to be unnotable, but I could be wrong, I am only going by the article. Somewhere between Weak Delete and Neutral. Just H 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it, too. While I'm not a fan of the company, it would be a shame to lose the information just because you had never heard of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.148.73 (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 Keep. Agent 86 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Joseph (wine expert)

Robert Joseph (wine expert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- bio, notability not forthcoming. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Discussion Moved to RfD. Agent 86 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koara (disambiguation)

Koara (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The dab page distinguished between a valid article and a misspelling of another title which itself was a redirect. Koara (Aboriginal) now has a Template:Redirect to address the misspelling, and Koara is free for use as a dab page should the need arise (it is a redirect to Koara (Aboriginal) currently. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as non-notable. Can always be recreated if the newcomer makes a mark in the world of music. —Doug Bell talk 09:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mitchell (singer)

Ben Mitchell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View 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.--Kchase T 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Aragon

Enrique Aragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod, for a claimed CEO of a non-notable company. Probable WP:COI violation, with no reliable source references, and no indication that the individual or company passes WP:BIO or WP:CORP. There's a claim that he's one of the richest men in the world, but I've been unable to find any verification of that. Elonka 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP AND CLEANUP. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I know this is going to be a controversial deletion so I decided to take this to AfD directly instead of prodding it. Basically, before you do anything, I want you to discard all of your biases and prior knowledge of this topic and look at it completely objectively. If you can't do that, I don't think you should make any judgment on this AfD because you probably have some kind of vested interest in the topic or something which would interfere with your neutrality. Now, looking at this monster of an article, all I see is original research. There are zero references in the entire article except when it quotes primary sources (being the Bible and Qur'an itself). That in itself is okay sometimes, but throughout the article, large sections of both works are quoted and it leaves the reader to draw conclusions, sort of like saying "Here's two passages. They have similarities." and just leaving it at that. Finally, the Bible and Qur'an are similar. So what? The Lion King and Hamlet are similar too but they don't have an article that just puts two sections of them side-by-side verbatim without even explaining why they're similar (a side note, is it copyvio to have such large blocks of Biblical and Qur'anic text in an article?). That is something that should be discussed in their individual articles, if it's notable enough at all (and a side note, isn't it obvious enough that the Bible and Qur'an would have similarities even without an article on it?). Axem Titanium 20:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • no vote yet Good points. The question is: Is the article verifiaBLE. And another interesting question: Would it be ok with OR in SOME cases? Or in other words, is it OR if the facts are obviously self-evident and non-controversial? Im sure everybody agrees that this is a more ... uh.... "notable"? ... uh... topic than comparing The Lion King with Hamlet. --Striver 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR unless article can be rewritten with proper sourcing, in which case, stubify and restart This is a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia, but at the moment, the article appears to be pure original research. I don't see any copyvio issues here however. Bwithh 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- i agree there is no copyvio, but I do not agree that this is a viable topic for an article. The question posed by Striver is a telling one - "is OR ok in some cases?" I think the answer is no, even when its self-evident stuff. OR is OR, and the fact that something is true does not make it automatically valid as a WP article.--Dmz5 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, to clarify my comment, I mean that this is a reasonable article if there is no original research (including "self-evident" stuff) i.e. rely on authoritative secondary sources only instead. A quick glance at google books suggests that there are books out there making this kind of comparison. How reliable these sources are will take further investigation Bwithh 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some things to be improved: the title is not a good choice--this is a comparison of some events and people in the Koran with the OT and NT. It -- fortunately -- is not about the similarities of their ethical or religious content, or their style, or their manner of composition, or their historical influence. It -- fortunately -- does not attempt to judge which story is more likely to be historical, or to cite sources who might give their opinions on that.
The paraphrases are too long, as are the sections done by quotation. It would be better to make compact accounts, with appropriate parts as quotations in each of the sections--and to make each parallel a main section. this would be much more readable. And perhaps it is not a good idea to include the entire Gospels as one paraphrase. I'd advise doing just the OT here, and do a separate article for the Gospels. DGG 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly context is needed. Obviously these texts were not originally written in modern English. Plus, Wikipedia is not a religious text archive (though Wikiquote or WIkisource might be used for this). Also see my comments below Bwithh 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • some comments This discussion is notable for the most drastic misunderstanding of copyright yet seen in WP. Neither the Bible nor the Koran are copyright. Specific translations may be, but most of this is paraphrase, and citing a few verses from even a recent translation is just about the clearest example of fair use I can imagine. (though if a particular translation is used, it should be identified)
I do not see this as biased to an Islamic view. The only reason why someone would think so is the relative unfamiliarity of the Koran when read by someone who knows the Bible thoroughly. I hope it does not mean that the editor thinks that any mention of a non Judeochristian view is necessarily bias. Even if we for some reason judge by length, the Koranic passages are usually shorter. DGG 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But without sourcing and context, this is not of much use to researchers. The article does not even indicate which versions of the Koran and the Bible are used. There are substantial differences and debates over interpretation and translation of these texts. As it is, the article seems to suggest with its quotations that the English language versions of the Koran and Bible are stable and uncontroversial. But the meaning of these texts is a matter of dispute even for those fluent in the relevant strains of Arabic and Hebrew/Greek. Proper referencing and scholarly context is needed. Bwithh 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I couldn't find the tool section on the biography portal, but you're welcome to add it there.--Kchase T 10:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poets' Graves

Poets' Graves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (notability). Based on the assertation on the talk page, I am hesitant to delete so am bringing it to AfD. As this is a procedural nomination, I 'abstain. Martinp23 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now edited the article to (hopefully) provide more information about the purpose and relevance of Poets' Graves. I also have many photographs that could be uploaded. Thanks C1self
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bemowo Pictures

Bemowo Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD) looks like Autobiography (see de:Diskussion:Bemowo Pictures we are quite well-known). On pl it has already been deleted (pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Bemowo Pictures); on de there is a deletion request. The article was put on several Wikipedias today. So it looks like spamming and advertising ... Sicherlich Post 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is a kind of spam. It was created in 5 or 6 wikipedias by 2 or 3 days ago. In the pt:wp (portuguese language, where I work) it was created by using automatic translation (and what a terrible translation) and now we are voting for deletion there also. Maybe we should be careful... many people think articles are ok because of the interwikis. Marcelobbr 10:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I answered Marcelo at pt:wp and I have to answer here. Maybe my Portuguese is dramatic but I didn't use automatic translator - I hoped someone would improve it. Don't feel surprised that it's exactly the same at all wikipedias - I consider it absolutely normal. And... it has finally nothing in common with advertisements. We are a non-profit group so please don't make such allegations against us. Tom
so advertising is common in Wikipedia? (i think you have a wrong understanding of the concept) ...Sicherlich Post 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
did you understand what I wrote? It's common among The Commons not to catch the common knowledge but it looks common... etc. Tom

Hi, I know Bemowo Pictures and in my opinion this article is not an add at all. The group is developing very fast, they've got several intresting amateur movies and I see that they're getting better and better in this what they're doing. Good luck BP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.238.52 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC) - sole contribution to Wikipedia at this point[reply]

  • Very interesting - the initial article and every addition to it (except AfD tags and Categorizing) were written by someone with a single purpose account. The originator is User:Tomkowiak, who is apparently Rafal Tomkowiak, who made a "guest appearance" in the group's first production (thus has a serious conflict of interest problem here). The article is not sourced and does not assert any notability - borders on speedy territory. Very strong delete B.Wind 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki promotional spam. This promotional article is being spammed on several wikis simultaneously. Perpetrators and defenders of the article disclaim the possibility that what they are trying to do might not be in accord with encyclopedia policy and practice. A lack of interest in what is appropriate in the encyclopedia is not strong support for an article but a weakness. Key quotes, from wikipolicy articles which should be read by all who believe the article should be kept, are boxed here. Athænara ✉ 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC) [Note: Quotes unboxed & moved to Talk:Bemowo Pictures at 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC). –Æ. ][reply]

So... what is to be considered here? B.Wind 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC) No longer applies as bold heading and two boxes have been removed.B.Wind 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete not because its commercial or promotion: it is sufficiently informative. It's simply not notable until they get wider distribution or get an award or some deia coverage. DGG 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is? If you're referring to the boxed quotations, they don't belong here at AfD as they are not articles. These are better served at MfD. B.Wind at 147.70.244.102 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (can't log in at work computer).[reply]
I boxed the quotes for Tomkowiak's and 83.24.238.52's attention because they seem to be unfamiliar with those policies. (It's not a format I'd use again—I don't like how it turned out, either.)
The AfD message has been removed from the article twice, in spite of the clear statement in the notice itself that it must not be removed until the discussion is closed. It was still in place as of the 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC) revision by Tomkowiak, but 83.24.173.200 removed it two minutes later. It was replaced two days later and removed again by 83.24.133.106 within one half hour. I restored it a few minutes ago. –Æ. ✉ 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are you discussing here? I see no such link or article but two wikiboxes with boxed quotations, which are not articles. If it's dealing with the quotations, this is not the proper forum and process. If this is indeed the case, close debate as inappropriate and relist at WP:MfD instead. B.Wind 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Which article" (two links at top of this page) = Bemowo Pictures, which deserves deletion: After nearly a week, it still has no defenders other than those directly involved in pushing it and engaging in avoidant vandalism against wiki policies; 2. "boxed quotations" from wiki policy articles un-quoteboxed and moved to Talk:Bemowo Pictures. –Æ. ✉ 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification - the bold heading and the two boxed quotations gave the impression that the boxes were also up for deletion in a separate action. Now that they have been removed, the context is more clear. B.Wind 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete this article, it's your decision but please DO NOT make silly allegations of spamming and advertising ourselves here. We are a NON-PROFIT group and the only reason for why we do what we do is that smile on the faces of viewers. Before you decide to delete this article please visit our page and download the movie (direct link on the frontpage).

Rafal Tomkowiak (yes, the author of this article and the one who made a guest appearance blah blah blah... SO WHAT?!) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.139.166 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding the AfD process after five days:

"Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." (Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.)
"Every day, the day page (i.e. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day]]) more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." (Source: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page.)
This AfD discussion is now in its seventh day. –Æ. ✉ 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:J Di. -Amarkov blahedits 23:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Physics

Halo Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:WEB. The article confirms that it has yet to debut any videos. All references are from production company. -- Ben (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 empty. Martinp23 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolved

Revolved (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wow, um. It's a non-notable Beatles album, I guess? The "official site" is hosted by Blogger, and there's no evidence of notability. I'll be listing some related pages soon... -- Merope 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nonsense). Martinp23 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Thomas Morse

Garry Thomas Morse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally tagged for speedy deletion (CSD A7) but an assertation of notability is made, so it fails the "test" and cannot be deleted. As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain Martinp23 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I wasn't thinking of that part as the asseration, but the first line (about being the first...(something)). To be honest, it probably falls under CSD G1 as patent nonsense (at least in parts), so I'm deleting it now as such. Martinp23 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable and more. —Doug Bell talk 07:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Sound

Masters of Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahriman's Prophecy

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos Quest I: To Find a Sun

Cosmos Quest I: To Find a Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apprentice (game)

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This game won the American Girlscouts "Best Story in an AGS Game" "Best Player Character in an AGS Game" and "Best AGS Documentation" [38]. Game also gets about 700 hits on a google exact-name search.[39]. I weakly favor keeping this article. ---J.S (T/C) 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the americangirlscouts.org main page, "Who are we? We are a collection of geeks, most of whom have a long-time association with AGS. This site exists because we like to tell stupid people that AGS stands for 'American Girl Scouts'. It also serves as a communal site for the owners of the server on which it is situated." Seems like not a very notable page. Also, 700 hits is really very few. Andre (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, striking out. In light of new information, I'd recommend Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)::[reply]

It is one of the extremely notable Adventure Game Studio games. Strong Keep 69.112.43.41 14:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Due to new sources provided by Amaccormack. Now they're in the article itself they'll hopefully be integrated in time as references. The article's well-presented and I'm pleased that the creator saw fit to include all episodes on the one article rather than going silly and spraying them around like confetti. :D QuagmireDog 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the third and fourth entries in the series won multiple AGS awards, [40] so the series as a whole is notable enough. 195.114.94.194 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as unnecessary duplication from another article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters from Harry Potter Quidditch World Cup (game)

Minor characters from Harry Potter Quidditch World Cup (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

All this information is contained in the main article for the game John Reaves 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as abandoned and unnecessary. The main article, as stated by nom, contains lists of all characters. Whilst several forenames of team-members need to be filled in (that's assuming that they are characters from the books or movies and have been given forenames at all), it's all in the main article.
  • Delete. Unnecessary. --- RockMFR 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stress Tha Lyricist

Stress Tha Lyricist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete, musician that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Poor Google presence indicating that these albums are self-released and/or on non-notable labels, or are more likely demos. Majority of hits are Myspace and such. Claim of "top 10" song in USA Songwriting Competition (the reason for dePROD, per the author) is unverifiable. --Kinu t/c 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this nomination: the yet-to-be-released album Nerd Rap. --Kinu t/c 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to vote to keep the article, on the basis of the guy having a CD, until Kinu pointed out that, according to The Google Test the album seems to be self-released. That flies in the face of any type of notability guidelines that exist on wikipedia. DigitalEnthusiast 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the album was independently released, it was carried by major retailers such as Best Buy and Tower Records. Both claims can be validated by searching their websites. It is also availble through online distributor CDbaby.com and through the artists website www.stressthalryricst.com. The article was created in an attempt to spread awareness of a lesser known indie artist, but I do apologize if it's creation validated any polices, and will understand completely if a deletion is neccessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striggity (talk • contribs)
    • If this is true, the article should be kept. There are a number of "indie" or "underground" artists in all genres and all art forms on wikipedia. It seems that notability is defined as whether other people seem to agree - so having a website doesn't make one notable, but having a CD published and sold through major nationwide chains does. Also, the claim that the artist has been played on XM radio, if true, would lend weight to the notability of this artist, but needs to be sourced. DigitalEnthusiast 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, the CD was also available thru iTunes...if you do an artist search on the iTunes store, the CD comes right up. So even if it is on a significantly smaller scale than mainstream artists...the CD is commercially available to the public.
    • Per WP:MUSIC, the relevant criterion is [h]as released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). If (a) the importance of the label can be asserted and agreed upon, (b) there are indeed two albums on it, and (c) this information can be sourced, that should be considered in this discussion and increase the likelihood of survival. --Kinu t/c 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the article can be deleted then.
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. Only 23 unique non-Wikipedia GHits; none sufficient. -- Satori Son 06:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:MUSIC. Chondrite 09:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britishinsurance.com

Britishinsurance.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Note I moved this to British Insurance Ltd as that is the company that owns the domain and issues the insurance. --Trödel 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to just British Insurance for consistency in style. Reswobslc 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extreme brevity; only one page links to this one; nearly-if not actually-spam. I say that it would be better as three sentences of text in the Virgin Birth article. Scoutersig 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Brevity and few incoming links don't constitute criteria for deletion, speedy or otherwise, for something notable enough to be newsworthy by the BBC. Further, the nominator's spam sensors need tuning if the content of this article is "nearly" spam. A claim that an insurance company insured an immaculate conception risk will offend far more people than it will ever bring in. That's hardly an ad. I thought it was funny. Make it a stub and/or add detail. Reswobslc 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Trivial, unencyclopedic news story. Company shows no indication of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- obviosuly notable as perhaps the only insurance company where u can insure against the likelihood of a virgin birth. Also the nominator should watch when accusing people of spam. Astrotrain 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I see some other non-trivial press coverage. [41], Also Burgess of Britishinsurance.com (owner?) is referenced in two articles, [42][43]. I think that satisfies my concerns for notability and provides just enough to satisfy WP:V. I'd recommend Keeping this one. ---J.S (T/C) 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J.S. and Astrotrian. Notable as well as unique. --Oakshade 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick google search turns up that they are the 15th largest (2005) insurer in the UK (481 million £ in 2005, 491 in 2004) according to the Association of British Insurers (which by the way should also have an article :) should have an article on this company. --Trödel 16:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panda veg

Panda veg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable Chinese restaurant. This sort of thing belongs in WikiTravel as uninteresting outside the immediate locality. StoptheDatabaseState 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator admits WP:POINT... -Amarkov blahedits 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

because certain Wikipedia editors would rather any information which might impinge upon their faith not be mentioned on Wikipedia

I am putting this here as a tongue-in-cheek jab at efforts on Wikipedia to delete articles concerning Faith Freedom International and/or other critics of Islam. I vote speedy keep, as this is a notable subject and a well-written article. Furthermore, some dissidents from Islam are also notable. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say the Time

Say the Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable software, article is spam. It's already been speedy deleted three times, but the creator doesn't want to give up. JDtalk 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I stand by my own impression, but since I can't quite tell you what bothers me about them, I strongly recommend that others investigate on their own and not take my comments as any sort of gospel. I do apologize to you personally -- Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith, and I did not do that. --Mdwyer 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- I appreciate that. :-) This is/was my first Wikipedia article (which, just FYI, I felt inspired to do after reading The Long Tail, so all I'm trying to do is show that it's worthy of keeping. Veganguy 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile! No One Cares How You Feel

Smile! No One Cares How You Feel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not a particularly notable song. Not even a paragraph long, and could easily be in either the Gothic Archives or Hostile Hospital articles. CyberGhostface 23:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_December_8&oldid=1081094936"