Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 20 September 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beighton

Not notable for his waterskiing or his auto racing (all non-notable amateur competitions). Possible vanity. Drdisque 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If this information isn't verifiable, it shouldn't be merged - some arguments below mention this explictly, but WP:V's non-negotiability makes it implicit anyway. As no source has been presented, and the list has severe problems (notably the lack of black casualties), and would have to be heavily condensed to be encyclopaedic, anything written on casualties in the relevant article would not contravene the GFDL license on the content here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of Nat Turner's Rebellion

  • Delete, This is not information on Nat Turners Rebellion its a Casualty list. And if this was made in rememberance of the lost people its a poor memorial. This should be deleted or the names of the deceased remain unamed.24.243.178.182 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Hickman (student)[reply]

Non-notable victims since they all died, no source, most children victims are Child 1, child 2, child 3.... and some don't have full names anyways Coasttocoast 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I examined the Nat Turner page, and I felt it was too much of a copyvio and reported it. I did start a Nat Turner's Rebellion page from the start though, if anybody wants to edit and improve that.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLICS

This is shameless advertising of a non-notable chess program. Sorry. YechielMan 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Redman

Non-notable chess personality. I never heard of him. Being a past president of the USCF doesn't give you a free entry into Wikipedia. YechielMan 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Scholastic Chess Organization

Again, a local chess organization with no claim to notability, and probably an agenda to promote its own website. Out it goes. YechielMan 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Semi-Slav Defence. Yes, I know I participated in this debate, but I am closing this anyway because there seems to be reasonable agreement that merging is a good option, and merging chess articles with chess notation and analysis is pretty difficult if one is not a chess player. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QGD; Semi-Slav 5.Bg5 dxc4

I make the same point here as for B50 (chess opening) - the variation is too minor, and if you won't keep all 500 openings of ECO, keep none. If the article isn't deleted, it could be renamed as D44 (chess opening), or better, merged into Semi Slav Defense. YechielMan 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete using Copyright Judo by MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Whilst this isn't strictly within the bounds of the speedy deletion criteria, I don't think that there will be much disagreement over whether we need text that is a copy of a copyrighted ("Copyright © 2000 - 2006 LynxBanc®") non-GFDL web page, that is "used by permission", when we have a perfectly good free content article on the subject at adjustable rate mortgage. Uncle G 10:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option arm definition

Appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. The material is apparently taken ("by permission," although this is dubious, being unsourced) from lynxbanc.com. Several {{prod}} notices have been placed on the article, and both were deleted without explanation. Switchercat talkcont 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry. It looked like it might be unintentional, because it wasn't mentioned in the edit summary, but I'll try avoiding that next time. Switchercat talkcont 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. There is no need to clutter AfD with this obvious case. NTK 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, just because an article is business-oriented doesn't make it "speedy-delete" "advertising". We already have something on this topic at Adjustable rate mortgage. I see no business name included in the article. Nevertheless, delete because the "used with permission" note at the bottom doesn't really suffice, and redirecting this article name is pointless. –Outriggr § 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, copyvio'd commercial content is speedy-able. See criterion A8. -Elmer Clark 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel and Death

Yet another flash game, notability is doubtful at best, google hits are to be expected since it's a free online game Equendil Talk 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too minor for an article- doesn't meet WP:WEB and is unverifiable. The Developer's site also has a fairly poor Alexa ranking- the majority of Google hits come from gaming directories and hosting sites.--Wafulz 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not really sure how an Internet flash game could ever achieve notability...I guess making the news somehow or being reviewed in a magazine would help, but whatever the proper criteria would be, this sure doesn't meet them. -Elmer Clark 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elmer. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sort of amusing but not at all notable. I would not agree with Elmer that a flash game is inherently nonnotable, but I would definitely agree that the vast majority of them are not, even ones that are relatively popular and well-executed, due to their ephemeral nature. NTK 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bejeweled is on here and no one has a problem with it. Over 25milliion plays within the first few months after release, if that doesn't qualify for notability then what does? Yes it would increase google rankings, but that isn't the purpose of the article. Anything on wikipedia will have it's google ranking raised, that doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick & Harry is using Wikipedia as an advertising method.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hechaos (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as nn game. Comparing this to Bejeweled? Bejewled became a huge hit and is also available on Xbox Live Arcade and many cell phones. TJ Spyke 06:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Not even checking with the figures, as a free-to-play game that downloads in seconds on broadband, it isn't surprising that it has spread like wildfire amongst these free gaming sites. What else is there to actually say about this game? The article itself repeats itself and doesn't make a great deal of sense. Is this 'road rage' a sega game I've never heard of or are we talking Road Rash? When was there a motorbike duel in Bladerunner? Seems gobbledegook to put a few sentences in an article that hasn't proven any need to exist. With the greatest of respect, Bejeweled isn't just a popular webgame, it springboarded Popcap games up into a company publishing and producing some polished games and established them as one to watch. Bejeweled has been ported to many formats and is also a commercial product (the deluxe version). If this game gets some press, takes the world by storm etc. then I'd welcome an article, but right now it reads like a nonsensical advert about a popular-enough game that's getting copied-and-pasted by its developers. QuagmireDog 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know this one, but it's entirely unencyclopedic. Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Asuasu1 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bejeweled is notable. This isn't. Delete. — Haeleth Talk 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to QuickTime. Redirects are cheap and easy. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.mov

No vote. This was prodded on suspicion of a hoax, and it's difficult to find something in Google for this search term, for obvious reasons, but I did notice squatters on domains like dotmov.com and dotmov.org, which makes me doubtful. Can anyone confirm? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [2] - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effective Microorganisms

  • Advertising. Unsubstantiated claims. NPOV. SPAM? I'm really unsure what to do about this article. Much of the material is pseudoscientific. No independant, peer-reviewed publications were found (the 700 supplied are by the people selling the products, or are not in scientific journals). I'm for deleteing (or at the very least very major rewriting) this article. MidgleyDJ 01:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have many interests of which EM is only one. I have not created an ID until recently. If you can re-write the article so it doesn't look like spam, I would welcome it. I repeat: The science of effective microorganisms works as described. What confirmation do you need? Urbanwild 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see if we can get it into shape first. I say don't delete it - at least, not yet. As it stands, it is spam, but the topic is quite interesting and it could be re-written to take most of the blatant advertising. I'm going to do this now, and remove the unsubstatiated claims - if there's anything left to work with once that's done, I say the article should stay. Gruffle Gaw 11:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PubMed shows 11 articles on "effective microorganisms". It's interesting to note that these arent the best journals in their respective fields. The claims in the wikipedia article (in my experience) would warrant publications in very good journals. It speaks to me of smoke and mirrors. MidgleyDJ 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not experienced with PubMed, but I only found one, and not used in the sense of this article. Did you check that these articles were about the same thing or whether they simply contained the string "effective microorganisms"? NTK 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Elbrick

Delete due to lack of evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. Non-notable CEO of company whose notability is not readily asserted. One Google hit. --Kinu t/c 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OldVersion.com

Prod was removed by User:132.205.44.134. The subject of this article doesn't meet WP:WEB intrinsically, as it just redistributes software; that software isn't owned by the website itself. The article makes no assertions of notability, and isn't referenced at all. Mikeblas 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boroline

non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Google does provide quite a few results for this.--Húsönd 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. First, reviewing the Google hits shows that only a fraction of the hits are for the cream—more of them seem to be for a Boroline Road in New Jersey. Secondly, not every commercial brand on earth for such a mundane product is notable, and it would take more than a few Google hits to show otherwise. NTK 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be quite notable in India, if not in the US. -THB 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Market share of 21% among antiseptic creams in India. Also, a memorable advertising campaign featuring Riya Sen. (sigh). I'm not sure what 'fraction' of Google hits NTK was looking at. On google.co.uk, which I use, the first two pages are almost all about the cream or Boro Plus, a variant.Hornplease 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic is right. I can't get "Boroline - antiseptic cream - Bor-o-line!" out of my head now. Damn advertising jingles!Hornplease 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up Guy

Non-notable forum that fails the WP:WEB criterias. No Alexa ranking [5].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tucker

Disambiguation page with all red links. Mikeblas 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms from the Kingdom Hearts series

Unencyclopedic grab-bag of fictional people, places, and things in the Kingdom Hearts series, with no real-world context and no hope for real-world context, no sources and no hope for sources, and no encyclopedic content whatsoever. A similar AFD led to delete here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aberzombie

This has gone through both speedy and prod, both contested. (I apologize for the second prod in advance; I missed the first one in the edit history.) I believe that the sources provided still don't quite meet the guidelines in WP:NEO; if anything, it should be merged if the legal case is substantial enough. Crystallina 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apse(band)

do not meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND; the closest it comes is to an "international tour" (the most debated criteria of WP:BAND) but that isn't even likely to happen until late October (and according to the blog at Myspace that's linked as the proof, who knows what countries the "tour" will even entail) ju66l3r 03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am the author of this page, and I made some edits after this issue was brought up. After editing, I believe I have addressed some important issues:

As per Wikipedia's rules, a musical group is considered "notable" if they meet one of the criteria cited by Wikipedia itself. One such critera is that the band "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)...

-Keeping this in mind...consider that Apse is signed to Spanish label Acuarela Discos, and has currently completed two major releases for the label. You can find this information on Acuarela's website, or by confirming with them if you so desire. The external link at the bottom of the article now proves that Apse has two releases on Acuarela Discos. This label is an important indie label based in Madrid, with a large roster, and has been in existence for over 10 years. They have had releases by Xiu Xiu, members of Sonic Youth, and the Decemberists, all of which are large enough to be considered "notable".

-Further proof of Apse's European Tour can be confirmed by Acuarela Discos. On their webpage itself there is a link to the "Tanned TIn" festival website, held in Castellon, Spain, which has Apse's name on the banner. On it, it shows many other "notable" acts Apse will play alongside with. I have now included this link as a footnote in the biography section.

-Apse is also listed on AllMusic.com, which is noted on Wikipedia's own Notability page as "a good online resource for music and musicians". I have now put a link to Apse on allmusic.com, in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apse (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 September 2006

  • I've changed the title properly by using the "move" button. Never cut and paste an article from one title to another, as doing so results in a non-continuous edit history. That having been said, I have no opinion on the article's merit. —freak(talk) 16:44, Sep. 21, 2006 (UTC)

thanks...this is the first time I've written a Wikipedia article....so please bear with me. I've also added some interviews with the band and another review of their first album. Apse 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added a footnote to one of the interviews where I got some of the information from, in the main biography (footnote 1). Apse 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a link to the myspace page after the mention of the European Tour, which now confirms many specific dates, locations, and venues. Apse 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC) -Also added a link to their label's page, which confirms some of the European dates as well. Apse 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Super Smash Bros. Whispering(talk/c) 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blast-Line

The article talk page sums this one up nicely. Blast line is a term relevant to Super Smash Bros and Super Smash Bros Melee (its only links), and not much else. The information has already been added to the articles in question, and other terms from these games have already been deleted.  T.K.  TALK  03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Awakes Radio

Internet radio operating since July 2006, no non-trivial media coverage provided as evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QWERTY (song)

Article on a demo version of a song that might not even be commercially released. Until it's released as a single it doesn't deserve its own article. Wikipedia isn't an LP fansite. GrahameS 04:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily delete as nonsense. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gingervitis

Delete I feel that this article is pure nonsense, as it is based on a report that Eric Cartman gave in class during an episode of South Park. --Riley 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Valente

Did not compete in any racing other than Karts, which are the lowest level of motorsports. No evidence of claimed races in the US. Possible vanity. Drdisque 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racers are not required to have competed in races in the US. Winning a major national title outside the US is also notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was not saying that he was required to have participated in the US, I was saying that his claimed accomplishments in the US should not be considered because the series that the editor claims he raced in there are either indeciferable or do not exist. -Drdisque 12:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. - Mgm|(talk) 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The lead makes enough claims: "Valente won the Italian Karting Championship (UISP) in the junior category in 1994, took part at the 1995, 1996 and 1997 European and World Karting Championships (FIA/CIK). He also tested a number of Formula-3 and Formula-3000 cars for different teams in Europe." And while karting may be the lowest level of motorsports, winning a national competition in it (even at junior level) would in my view be notable, but I have doubts it is verifiable and the image leads me to lean to vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - winning a junior competiton as a 13 year old does not convey notability and he seems to have achieved nothing significant since. Little in the way of relevant GHits. Bridgeplayer 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. alphaChimp(talk) 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northcentral University

Appears to me to be non-notable diploma mill. Author effectively acts as he owns the article, and while I hesitated to propose it for deletion (because he took the "use my version or delete it" position, and I do not wish to further it), on second thought I felt that the organization is simply not notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with a side of salt. For all we know, he'll upload his original draft once the article is deleted. I would also like to suggest fully protecting the page as it is now to prevent further disruption. Ryūlóng 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - isn't deleating at this point really just giving in to BertWoodall (talk · contribs)? I don't see how that meshes well with your statement that "[w]e will not bend to your demands". As an accredited school of higher learning, one would expect NCU to have a entry in Wikipedia -- for heavens sake we have thousands of articles about non-notable High Schools here at Wikipedia, and we are going to delete an entry about a controversial post-high school educational institution just because their PR man is being too noisy? That doesn't seem to make sense, but then I am just an anon coward, so what do I know... -- 63.226.38.202 06:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 13:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the strongest possible terms. This is an accredited university recognized by the United States Department of Education which has been the center of recent controversy. Silensor 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it appears to fail WP:NN. Google hits are misleading due to the paid online ads. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a regionally accredited university at the center of recent controversy it seems like a most ideal topic for Wikipedia. Deleting the article is just a PR guy's end run around the truth. I also agree with suggestion of fully protecting the page as it is now to prevent further disruption. Highperformanceauto 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, barely notable degree mill involved in a non notable controversy. Ramsquire 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an accredited university, albeit online. --Myles Long 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. Derktar 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - Doesn't WP:SCHOOLS apply to this article? -- 12.106.111.10 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such an entry belongs in a place like Ripoffreport.com and not a forum guised as a source of valid information. Is the purpose of the Wikipedia forum to service individual vendettas, disgruntled employees, or un-informed individuals? This type of entry assumes much and does not serve as a source of valid information but as a tool of misdirection and assumptions. Silensor seems extremely un-informed with regards to the facts about NCU and can only assume that s/he has no experience with the institution directly and therefore is making unfounded blanket statements. S/he speaks of "recent controversy" as the ration for their view, but in fact the issues I can only assume s/he speaks about are historical because in truth they are related to NCU only through their former President Donald Hecht. There are no recent issues to speak of. I suggest s/he at least attempt a course so that they may avoid speaking from ignorance. There are other forums an individual may use for such recourse, this forum is inappropriate as Wikipedia might be misinterpreted to be a source of valid unbiased information on this subject. NCU has nearly 4000 students and over 600 affiliated staff. The information contained within this site serves no public interest, in only serves to satisfy a vendetta of a few individuals. If such a page must exist, it should be put under the heading of Donald Hecht as the topic and not NCU. Do the right thing. Delete this item. "B" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.71.38 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment 24.116.71.38 tracks back to CableOne.net in Arizona. This is the same IP used by Bert Woodall, paid NCU PR guy, who vandalized this site in the first place. This speaks for itself as a reason why this page should not be deleted but rather kept and protected. "Do the right thing," he says. What a joke. Highperformanceauto 01:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We always keep accredited institutions of higher education, and we tend to keep the more notorious diploma mills. Northcentral University is indeed in the database of accredited institutions kept by the United States Department of Education. If it is actually a diploma mill, being accredited makes it somewhat unusual. up+l+and 06:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. Hecht's involvement would probably make it more than "just a diploma mill". It is probably notable to have been fined a cool $500k for breaches of the law. As we have seen, the page will continue to come under attack. I believe that the public has a right to know about the organisation and its founder. Wiki is WP:NOT censored. Ohconfucius 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming that it really is accredited by North Central, then it can grant bachelor's degrees. We have tons of articles on elementary schools... I think most any college should have an article. The content of the article is another story. In a really bad case, which this appears to be, it might be OK to just delete the article to save everybody a lot of heartache. Still, the material at least has some references. I mean, the scandals and stuff just make the college more notable. I don't see how it can go. Herostratus 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ohconfucius and Herostratus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ohconfucius and Herostratus, accredited universities are absolutely notable, there is no need to be prejudicial against those that are on-line. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete General information to define NCU okay. Biased information designed to slander has no relevance here. Provides no useful information regarding the institute, only historical info about founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.229.179 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete delete content under NCU. Keep content regarding Hecht under heading Don Hecht with link from NCU with valid NCU info. solution for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.186.14 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Ohconfucius and Herostratus. JoshuaZ 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information in the Northcentral article is accurate and should be kept. I understand that it may be unflattering, but this site is not meant to be a marketing tool. Students spend a lot of money working on their education. If the school has controversial practices, it may negatively affect their accreditation status, and thereby make degrees from the school of questionable value. Prospective students and others should be aware of this information. Bluecanada 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Misconceptions About Chemistry

Another in the misconceptions series. Like the already deleted articles and an earlier deleted version of this article, these articles are unencyclopedic in tone and content. Delete --Peta 06:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Os Gêmeos

Insufficient assertions of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed stance to Keep following mistake in previous research.--Húsönd 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gonzales

Some claim of notability made, but I don't think quite enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Kilgallen

Insufficient assertions of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is included in the PBS series "art in the 21st century"[6], together with some 50 other artists; she has had a review in the New York Times[7]. There's also a book about her work[8]. Lots and lots more of links, but this is enough for me to keep the article. Fram 09:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Templeton

I don't think there's just quite enough notability shown, particularly since PEACOCK words were used. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep!! whats wrong with this? ive seen much worse on here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.205.82 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Templeton is a highly well-regarded skater who founded Toy Machine, perhaps the most famous and successful skateboard manufacturer ever, and won a Slam City Jam. That's all that needs to be said. -- Kicking222 13:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs improving, but there is no doubt he is nootable enough.--KoRnholio8 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Templeton has been a VERY important part of skateboarding since the late 1980's. Not to mention he is known internationally as a visual artist. I can think of several large scale magazines that Templeton is featured in on a monthly basis. Don't believe me? Pick up a copy of this month's Transworld... maybe Skateboarder then? ... how 'bout Thrasher... Juxtapoz, perhaps? All of these magazines circulate between 500 000 and 1 000 000 copies a month. Should I go into publications that are not printed in English as well? What the hell are you thinking? The fact that this article is being considered for deletion is absolutely ridiculous. The person who initiated this deletion vote obviously knows nothing about skateboarding, which makes me think that they should stick to deleting articles from subjects that they know something, if anything, about.

Sincerely, Phil Larin, AKA the guy who started this article.


P.S.


HEY ALL YOU WIKIPEDIA KNOW IT ALLS! YOU COULD HAVE JUST GOOGLED THE NAME 'ED TEMPLETON'!

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Templeton&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

HERE, LET ME DO IT FOR YOU. CHECK IT OUT!


http://www.famousveggie.com/edtempleton.cfm

http://www.newimageartgallery.com/templetonbio.html

http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/o-spotlight702.asp

http://www.skateboarding.com/skate/stories/article/0,23271,1074559,00.html

http://www.toymachine.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1438842/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4846941610358434576

http://www.skateboardermag.com/skateboarder-news-features/features/15thingsed_t/

http://www.caughtinthecrossfire.com/skate/interviews/28

http://emericaskate.com/team/ed-templeton/

http://www.cerysmaticfactory.info/templetone.html

http://www.amazon.com/Ed-Templeton-Golden-Age-Neglect/dp/8888493026

http://gvr05.etnies.com/regular/ed-templeton-2/

http://www.amazon.com/Ed-Templeton-Deformer/dp/0972778861

http://expn.go.com/athletes/bios/TEMPLETON_ED.html

http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=92

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEr9eIhmQ_g&mode=related&search=

http://www.skimthefat.com/skaters/showskater.cgi?skaterID=836

http://secure.giantrobot.com/products.php?code=CONTAG&catid=I004

http://www.skateboardermag.com/skateboarder-news-features/magazine/qaedt/

http://store.freestyleshop.com/riwhcoedte.html


YES, THESE ARE ALL SEPARATE LINKS THAT PERTAIN TO THE SAME GUY. TAKE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THEM ALL. DON'T BE SHY. PLEASE REMEMBER TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON SOMETHING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. THERE YOU HAVE IT. HAVE A NICE DAY. --Phil Larin

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McGee

I don't think sufficient notability has been asserted or shown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't think the article establishes sufficient notablity. The claim regarding the shoe art makes it non-speediable though imho. Thryduulf 10:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Significant number of ghits, the first of which links to a biography of him on PBS. Agent 86 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Graffitti art is not my cup of tea, but this guy, like Neckface is one of the few present-day graffitti artists to emerge as serious artists. He's exhibited at major museums (LACMA, for one), and he did the licensing deal with Addidas. Gotta say, I think he meets notability crites. I do wish the quotes from him were sourced, though. Pleather 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Twist is one of the most famous graffit writers in history. Yes this page is done poorly. Someone with more information needs to come and clean it up a little. And source more quotes, trust me there is more. Also add more pictures. But KEEP definitelyGrits 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a notable artist.--Fred 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page does need some updating and more detailed bio. Artist is well-known and influential and should definitely have his own Wikipedia page. He was part of PBS's "art: 21" special on important artists of the 21st century. September 25, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.210.18 (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Dillard

No evidence that this guy meets WP:BIO, delete --Peta 04:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was rapid deletion. —freak(talk) 17:45, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Begginer guide to Runescape

It's a guide, as stated in article name, and no I don't think we can speedy this. So lets start the 5 day discussion on a guide on runescape.--Andeh 06:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn, good work by User:Edison. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelite Sisters of the Aged and Infirm

This is a non-notable organization (fails the proposed WP:ORG. Out of 41 unique search hits [9], I see nothing that may bolster notability to encyclopedic levels. Deprodded with the comment "The community will be happy to decide whether they're notable" and without any changes to the article. Erechtheus 06:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC) In light of the outstanding job done adding references not apparent via Google, I withdraw the nomination. Erechtheus 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Chacon

Not formatted correctly, sources not cited, and most likely a hoax, also it does not conform to a Neutral Point of View WilliamC24 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of the hoax can be found here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n3_v21/ai_19524413

All biographies are the same biography copied over and over again by PsiFactor fans.

I agree, I think the person whoever posted this should be put on probation if he returns. If that's what you mean. Also, the person who wrote this wrote another article that is a hoax, but I don't feel like reporting two deletions so close together. WilliamC24 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are we sure this is a hoax? The article may not provide an accurate description of Chacon, but I have some evidence that he might actually exist. In the 1993 non-fiction children's book The Very Scary Almanac, author Eric Elfman includes an interview with one Christopher Chacon, whom he identifies as a member of OSIR. Elfman writes in the introduction to the interview:
"The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (OSIR) is a private agency, based in Central California, that investigates paranormal occurrences around the world. Since 1985 OSIR has investigated hundreds of reports of poltergeists, apparitions, haunts, causes of demonic possession, UFO abductions, and the simply unexplainable. The OSIR staff also includes electrical engineers, geologists, biologists, and scientists from other disciplines. Christopher Chacon, the director of OSIR and a field investigator, is also a professional illusionist and magician, a useful talent when it comes to detecting fraud or trickery. In December 1992, he agreed to answer some questions over the telephone about his job as a real ghostbuster..." (pg. 41)

There's a brief excerpt from the interview here, just to prove that I'm not making this up. Elfman also includes an address for OSIR, namely PO Box 461779, Los Angeles, CA 90046. Zagalejo 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Chacon has an IMDB profile, fwiw. Although, doing a little Google search on OSIR, I really don't know what to think about this guy. I can't find any evidence online confirming that OSIR ever existed, although the 1993 book (which predates Psi-Factor) suggests that it did. *shrugs* Zagalejo 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally believe that Chacon is misrepresenting himself in all of the instances posted on the internet. Basically all of the biographies of Chris Chacon share exactly the same source. They are all structured the same and have exactly the same information, and I believe they are the same. Incorrect information, copied over 100 times still does not make the information correct. I believe that Chris Chacon is a fraud, and the information that is out on the internet neither proves nor disproves it's existence, leaving me to request a delete for this because their isn't enough information to write a credible, neutral article on Chris Chacon. WilliamC24 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – some research I found a few pre-1996 (ie, pre Psi-Factor) Factiva hits mentioning OSIR:

  • "Spook Stalker". People. 20 September 1993. p. 85
  • Carpenter, Richard P. "The hotel that inspired `The Shining'". The Boston Globe. 31 October 1993. p. B32.
  • "High-tech ghost-busters haunt Louisiana mansion". The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, Mass). 29 October 1994. p. 52.
  • "Ghosts and voodoo in bayou land". The Dallas Morning News. 30 October 1994. p. 13 g.
  • "Things that go bump in the Bayou". Los Angeles Daily News. 30 October 1994. p. T1

These specifically mention Chacon:

  • Hallisy, Erin. "Orinda's Real Ghostbusters / Every day is Halloween at the Office of Paranormal Investigations". San Francisco Chronicle. 29 October 1990. p. A5.
  • "Ghost busters never saw one". Los Angeles Daily News. 30 Ocober 1990. p. N3.
  • Saari, Laura. "Haunted? Who ya gonna call? // Ghostbusters discover the paranormal in OC". The Orange County Register. 31 October 1991. p. K01.
  • "Check out haunted hotels". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 23 October 1994. p. H3. (duplicated in several other papers)

So it seems that Chacon is a real ghost hunter, and that the OSIR actually existed, although the facts of the organization may have been exaggerated for the tv show. What do people think? Please relist this discussion at AfD if no one responds. Zagalejo 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not let crap like this stand. If you can write a more comprehensive, neutral article, I'll remove the delete tag, other wise, I'll argue the point and let it stand. I have no access to such databases as of now, and all that stands online are the same articles copied over and over. While I believe that Chacon may be a one of these ghost hunters, like what you see on the SciFi channel, I believe that he has exaggerated his importance, and by the lack of any current information that I can find with my resources, I don't believe that he is active. I am a skeptic, and I don't believe that stating that the MiB, paranormal exists as a fact is a neutral point of view. WilliamC24 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have real homework I'm supposed to be doing... :). I don't really care if you delete it now, as it is currently useless, and I don't have time to clean it up. But I think there is some potential here for a future article. Zagalejo 05:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment Some of his television credits do appear legitimate; according to this and this, someone named Chris or Christopher Chacon appeared on the television series Sightings multiple times. I found a possible verification for the Connie Chung appearance as well - a December 30, 1993 TV listing from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says, ""Eye to Eye With Connie Chung" 9 p.m. on Channel 5 (77301) - Segments include a report on safety at railroad crossings; the story of a dying woman's wish to reunite with her family; a glimpse into the secret training grounds of South Africa's neo-Nazis; and a look at real-life ghostbusters, the Office of Scientific Investigation and Research." I also found a 1994 KCAL news transcipt mentioning Chacon at Lexis Nexis. I'm fairly confident now that some of this is salvageable with a little effort, but considering I'm the only person who seems to have access to some of these sources, it might be easier to delete it and let me rewrite it at a later date. Of course, if someone else has access to the sources and wants to try to clean it up, feel free....Zagalejo 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I have trimmed it down to a stub. I basically pared away everything I couldn't immediately verify with a trustworthy source. It's currently pretty short, but I think it has room for expansion. Zagalejo 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy. Robdurbar 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Ignatenko

Vanity piece about an artist, does not assert importance. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-21 08:08Z

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

The result was nomination withdrawn pending completion of the Wikipedia:SU cleanup project. Thryduulf 23:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kugel (onomastics)

1. Non-encyclopedic. This is a free-association list. 2. Most individuals referred to here are not notable. 3. The page is mostly redlinks, and nothing much else. I've copied any possibly notable non-redlink material to the appropriate pages, Kügelgen and Kugler. This is part of a cleanup of "onomastics" pages created by the problematic User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg, see:

WP:VPM#Onomastic_pages_created_by_Sheynhertz-Unbayg
Category_talk:Onomastics
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg

All of the redirects S-U created for this page should also be deleted.

-- Batamtig 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once the page has been replaced by disambiguation pages, it is no longer needed. However, the redirects should be dealt with individually (some might have better targets and all of the redirects need their incomings links checked). Once all of that is done, the page can be deleted. I think this can be done without AFD just by WP:IAR by people joining the S-U cleanup effort and yours truly acting as a rouge admin. Kusma (討論) 09:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the cleanup is complete, inlcuding changing the targets of useful redirects, then nominate all the pages in one group AfD or possibly PROD them all. Once the pages are deleted, the redirects that are not useful can be speedied per CSD:R1. Thryduulf 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not mind if this page is deleted, but additional pages should not go through AfD, in my opinion. I suggest moving content to separate talk pages, this handles many of the redirects, and then deleting the content on the original page as you move it. That way, you'll keep your place if it is a long page and someone who comes along later will not check to make sure that all of the content has been moved to the other pages. -- Kjkolb 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup is coordinated at Wikipedia:SU. Please join! Kusma (討論) 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I withdraw my nomination in favor of the community consensus. I guess we should wait until the redirects are dealt with. --Batamtig 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Mile

Delete Seems this area isn't known as the Pink Mile, the phrase was made up for the Wikipedia article. The article is likely to be an advertisement for a couple of the bars mentioned. A google search reveals only 69 unique hits, the vast majority of which are wiki mirrors. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2

Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual and various websites. Patent gamecruft. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This deletion is very similar to List of maps in Battlefield 2142 and List of maps in Company of Heroes, which I believe set a precedent for this to be removed. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadwin prinstscreen

This article is about non-notable software (also fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE standard). One unique search result [10] does nothing to augment notability. Deprodded by creator. Erechtheus 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized Universe

Seems to be about some "What the Bleep Do We Know" style book The Synchronized Universe by Dr. Claude Swanson. The article is confused with little salvageable even if the subject is worth having an article about, which I don't think it does. No article on author. Book ranked 357,234 on Amazon [11]. The concepts described are nothing new and can be found much better explained elsewhere on Wikipedia. Delete Spondoolicks 08:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in South Africa

The "article" is not from a neutral point of view and only opinion (verging on a soaboax) on current affairs, violating guidelines (point 5. of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Furthermore, large parts are not verifiable and factually incorrect. Deon Steyn 08:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the US government has something about crime on their consular info sheet doesn't make something a real issue. The issue is real, but not for that reason. Lionchow 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gomek Records

Non notable "record label" (actually a website, kind of a free vanity publisher for bands). "Gomek Records" gets 22 distinct Google hits. Gomek gets a lot of unrelated hits. Threat signal (their notable artist) gets 21 distinct Google hits in combination with Gomek. In fact, Gomek is not a record label, but a kind of webhost. Everyone can place their demo's, songs, ... on their website if they match their quality requirements. There is no contract, no record, no promotion, no exclusivity. See [[13]]. As such, they have had until now one band wo put a previously released demo also on their website and later went on to record one album (which in itself seems not enough to match WP:MUSIC for that band. Some people have gotten to know the band through Gomek, which is good, but as can be seen from the Google hits, this is only a small part of the exposure the band has gotten and is hardly relevant in their career, let alone as a reason to have an article on this website. Fram 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it would probably be better if Gomek became a redirect to Crocodile (all info seems to be there already), or was just deleted, but that is a separate issue. I'm not against mass AfD's (I've donea few myself), but they should be about very similar articles (content and so on). These two have the same author, and one is named after the other, but they are completely unrelated and would have a quite different AfD logic. So I'm not going to include Gomek in this AfD. Fram 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yep, i completely agree. I only went to the other article because it was referenced in a way that suggested it was well known. But yes, it's not applicable to this AfD and i wouldn't want to confuse matters and subvert the AfD process. Onebravemonkey | blah blah blah 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Pool Construction

At present this consists of 1 paragraph defining what a swimming pool is (from the Swimming pool article), 1 paragraph of marketing speak about what is invovled with deciding to building a swimming pool, a series of headings with no content, a see also list of two items (Swimming pool and construction), and - what I suspect is the primary motive for the page - a long list of external links.

I don't see any potential in this for an encyclopaedic article. If there were any content here, I'd suggest moving it to Wikibooks where, by my understanding of their policies, it would fit on their "howtos" bookshelf. There isn't anything to move, however, and so I think it should just be deleted. If for some reason it is kept, it should be moved to Swimming pool construction. Thryduulf 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - don't see the point of an article on this. Cordless Larry 10:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator's excellent and transparent reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in complete agreement with Mgm. Nigel (Talk) 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, without prejudice. Were the blanks filled in, with specifics about different methods of pool construction, this might be different. Good to know that building a swimming pool requires proper project management skills, as opposed to the building of a suspension bridge, which has no such requirement. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 14:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still in the process of writing the article. Is it too much to ask for a little patience before you pass final judgement? This if my first attempt at writing an article so if you have any suggestions as to the structure or content, I would appreciate it.
  • If an article is not ready for the primetime so to speak, it's best to keep it in your userspace. Smerdis has offered some idea on what we expect such an article to look like, and it doesn't include partial copies of existing articles. If you need a copy of this after it is deleted for another version of this article, there's enough administrators (including me) happy to help you out. Have you registered an account yet? - Mgm|(talk) 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Go ahead and delete it. If you feel like it is a worthy article then let me know and I will continue to work on it and post it when it is in a more finished state. If not, please let me know so I don't spend a lot of time putting together something that won't be published. Thanks for your patience on this. Also, I am registered but it looks like I neet to create a user page. My username is "caspecops".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caspecops (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 Sep 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suchita chaudhry

Former speedy, former prod. User page mistakenly created in main namespace. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Storkk 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go to her user talk, click the image that orphanbot tagged, and look at the description. not 100% sure it's her, but close. --Storkk 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ok... according to moinjnu, it's not the same person. Storkk 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, prehaps one day it'll be notable. Yanksox 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacDade Mall

A keep closure for this article at its previous AfD was overturned by DRV as improper. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while it might possibly be notable in the local area this does not merit it a Wikipedia article. The article is also incredibly poorly written with many unsourced statements and even self-contradictorary paragraphs, e.g. "In 1995, the premiere store was a happening joint called "The De-Lousing Factory". It closed in June of 1977 after an 8 year-old boy was killed underneath the escalator." As it previously mentions it has only one storey, this makes me think this could be entirely made up. Thryduulf 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It fails to meet Wikipedia's recommended inclusion criteria. The links in the article and the link provided in the prior AFD discussion do confirm the existance of the Mall but all were the equivalent of minor stories in the business section of a local paper - not the kind of "multiple, independent coverage" that we normally expect. Lots of companies go out of business every year. There is nothing special about this one. Rossami (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A local newspaper's articles constitute independent coverage. There is a place in Wikipedia for notable failures, which includes this mall. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 12:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Local suburban newspapers really have nothing to say that is worthwhile. When you are in high school, you will see guys get in the local newspaper for coming first in the under-10 football competition or because they won some Freshman poetry competition in their local village etc. As was pointed out in the DRV, the newspaper had a very small circulation, less than the average spamvertisement by you rlocal member of congress/parliament who has 100,000+ constituents and uses his spamvertisement newspaper to plug local butchers who do fundraising for him.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I realize there is a trend of late, which includes some AfD precedent, to include articles on all shopping malls regardless of notability, but I disagree with that. A mall, like any other business, should meet one of the three notability criteria set forth in WP:CORP. This one clearly does not, and because of that insufficient notability, virtually none of the details in this article could ever be properly verified per WP:V. --Satori Son 12:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, especially Satori. -- Kicking222 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP as the nominator of the first AfD and the editor who brought the subject to DRV. Erechtheus 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Bwithh 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete malls aren't inherently notable, and this article doesn't do anything to establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:CORP says: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets 'any of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The article lists multiple non-trivial published works. Therefore, MacDade Mall passes WP:CORP. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The criteria asks for non-trivial published works as references - the articles lacks these (a couple of small mentions of parts of the mall not the mall itself in one larger local newspaper; an article reporting on the mall closure in a small local newspaper (mentioned in the previous afd, not in article); a random Flickr photo account; a non-working link on a model railway hobbyists' website.) Also, even if better sources were found, WP:CORP is still a guideline subject to consensus interpretation. Bwithh 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sean Black's previous closure. Passes WP:V. Shopping malls are notable for being municipal landmarks, not corperations. This should not have been listed for deletion. You might as well be applying WP:CORP to a bridge, tower, lighthouse, or architectural feat. — CharlotteWebb 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the mall is notable from some other perspective such as architecture, length, or height, by all means produce appropriate sources saying so. Contrary to the apparent opinion of those with mall fetishes, I am not out to get all malls. Carr Mill Mall is clearly significant for non-WP:CORP reasons, and I have done my bit to improve that article. Similarly, I am considering whether or not Chesterfield County, Virginia's Cloverleaf Mall is notable enough for an article due to the drawn out and well covered dispute over its redevelopment. There is no way that all malls are notable by default. I know of plenty of enclosed malls that should not be listed here. I'll note them here because I don't think that's a violation of WP:POINT: Tazewell Mall, Richlands Mall, Claypool Hill Mall, Mercer Mall, Jasper Mall. Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Erechtheus 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - this isn't a heritage listed landmark, this is just some block of concrete. As for schools, these usually last a long time and accumulate heritage and a community around them, unlike a convenience store, which has no sentimental value to those who attend it.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, the previous closure was overturned as improper, so it is not a valid reason to keep. --Satori Son 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - no more different than any random shopping mall and this isn't a business directory.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I still see no reason to delete it, but if you want to, go ahead.--SB | T 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite TruthbringerToronto's grasping at straws, it does NOT have multiple NON-trivial media coverage. Hell, it barely has multiple TRIVIAL media coverage -- a suburban paper and a local business newspaper, and that's it? --Calton | Talk 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I encouraged relisting because of the new source that was found by the last contributor to the prior AFD, which needed evaluation by the community. My opinion is that this doesn't get the article to meet WP:CORP; only one of those sources is about the mall. The one on telemedicine could be a source for that article, which could use sourcing and improvement. The one on the lawsuit couuld be a source for an article about changing patterns of food distribution or on department stores in general. But neither of these are sources about the mall. GRBerry 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: At first, I thought: Why does anyone care about this mall? Then I saw the picture: . That is a pretty damn cool entrance. However, based on the number of cars outside, I would say it is not notable. But, if we can find a reliable source that that ridiculous entrance actually exists, and is not photoshopped out of a kids cartoon, then the page should definitely remain. NOTE: The article states "The Macdade Mall previously contained 2 indoor water fountains years ago." How many water fountains does it contain now!? —Centrx→talk • 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well at least somebody here is thinking in terms other than briefcases and billfolds. If we can keep from calling the Waldenbooks outlet a "cubicle", we might be make some real progress here. — CharlotteWebb 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment: Although there doesn't appear to be many cars there, the shadows in that photograph are very long and I suspect it was taken early in the morning, which is not the busiest time of day for even the most notable malls. Thryduulf 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arbustoo, GRBerry and Blnguyen. JoshuaZ 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No cows please! - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COW programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ETA programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Boy Studios

As far as I can tell, a recreation speedy doesn't apply here. The content is sufficiently different (expanded) and previous speedies are specifically not included in CSD G4. Still, the site claims to have under 150,000 and has no Alexa rank to at all. According to Google, no one is linking to the site [15]. I consider it unverifiable advertising, but let's finish this AFD, so we can speedy it as a G4 in the future. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. PJM 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hmmm...well, I think it should stay. If someone else comes up with a better article for the subject then we should just take down this one and add the other one. I mean, why not leave it up there? Unless it costs money to host this ONE extra article, I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreshman (talk • contribs)
Because advertising is not one of the goals of Wikipedia. Keeping this article violates policy and opens us up to arguments from other people who want their advertising kept too. - Mgm|(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FiPL

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flip (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Dragonball Z in Negima.

This article is purely Original Research, POV, unsourced and cannot be verified(due to the fact that the author of such series did not and is not likely to admit making reference to other series by different authors). The creator of this page created it just because the same content was deleted in the main article of Negima in the Trivia section by the same reason. MythSearcher 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CompWebChess

There's no notability for an experimental chess program. Only operational, well-known or historically significant chess computers should be on Wikipedia. YechielMan 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group of friends pretending to be a record label. NawlinWiki 14:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Unit Records

Entirely non-notable, entirely unencyclopedic, entirely unverifiable. It appears to be some high school kid writing about an inside joke with his friends vandalizing other pages. Anyone disagree? Steve McLinden 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuruDutt Redkar

Delete This article, I believe is fake. However, if not it is pure vanity. I googled the name and not much info came out. This article has been tagged for referencing since April. It is time to go... GuruDutt Redkar Todd661 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Restoration Foundation

This group is not known at all outside of its small circle (the claim that it serves 2 million Masons is ludicrous, and not supported by their website). Furthermore, it has only five lodges under it, is only five years old, and has no material on it available that is not self-published. It fails WP notability guidelines and sourcing guidelines. MSJapan 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn ALR 07
05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Blueboar 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

467 BC

Nothing happened, blank article, nn-year. - FrancisTyers · 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar...marked. PJM 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I can't since there's exactly zero relevent policies on notability and years - i.e. years don't need to be notable (Whisky Tango Foxtrot that means) to be included. They need to be encyclopaedic and verifiable which this is. WilyD 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Larzelere

This is a non-notable personality. A google search for "Robert Larzelere" produces only 100 results, and it is not at all clear that any of them (apart from the wikipedia link!) refer to the person featured here. Most seem to relate to a reputable clinical psychiatrist at the University of Nebraska.

On the face of it the article is libellous, both to Dr Larzelere, and to Werner Erhard. The article contains very little content of substance, and appears to be almost entirely written by a single editor, user:smeelgova. The article does not meet wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, especially in respect of potentially defamatory personal allegations. The sole source for the contentious material is Pressman's book [Outrageous_Betrayal]. This does not appear to satisfy the reliable source guidelines as it fails to provide footnotes, bibliography or references to the primary sources on which it draws, so the assertions cannot be checked. Although written in a matter-of-fact narrative style, it appears to draw substantially on off-the-record unattributable conversations. The account of the incident featured (and much else in the book) is directly contradicted by attributable eye-witness reports in 60 minutes and the assasination of Werner Erhard, Jane Self Ph.D, 1992 ISBN: 0942540239, which - in contrast - contains over 250 footnotes giving full detail of individuals interviewed and publications quoted. DaveApter 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I concur- this article is clearly not designed as an encylopedia article, but rather a "tabloid article" . It is patently sensational. I have no pbjective to people freely posting what they think is a good article in good faith even when I disagree with them but this is not done- in my opinion - in this case. Alex Jackl 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish national identity

POV essay, unencyclopedic, unverified and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Made redundant by many (better) articles including Politics of Scotland, Culture of Scotland, History of Scotland, Scottish Nationalism, Walter Scott and, bizarrely, Loch Ness Monster. IslaySolomon 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (after edit conflict) And I'm sure, using those sources, you could produce a very thorough and engaging piece of work with the title "Scottish Nation Identity". But it would be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. People's personal feelings on unionism/nationalism or Scottishness/Britishness are a matter of the Politics of Scotland and the extent to which Scottish people identify with traditional Scottish symbols is a part of the Culture of Scotland.
The title of this article is far too broad and open to interpretation and I think it will always end up either repeating reams of content from other articles or it will become original thought, drawing its own conclusions. At present it seems to do a little of both.
Incidentally, Donald Dewar's remarks about the Scottish national identity in A Lifetime of Opportunity seem to have related to his feelings on the political climate of Scotland in the late 1990. I think they'd be better referenced in Politics of Scotland or in fairly slender article on the man himself.--IslaySolomon 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Henderson

non notable band, per WP:MUSIC Dweller 12:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete under WP:CSD:G4 Gwernol 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Grammar School Arts and Debating Society

Non-notable School Society, probably falls under WP:VAIN. Article on same subject has already been deleted: [17]

Thus I vote Delete --LukeSurl 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetroHorse

Advertising for nonnotable company/website. Also including duplicate page Metrohorse. NawlinWiki 13:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Spas

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudomathematics

There are around 850 google hits for this topic, of which over a third appear to be from Wikipedia articles and mirrors. Around 130 unique hits. The article itself is unreferenced, in that the few references mentioned do not appear to mention the term. Some of the article is concerned with bona-fide mathematics, unprovable thjeorems etc., but most of it reads very much like original research, possibly as a thinly-veiled attack on certain controversial individuals. In any case this looks like a substantially unreferenced article under a neologist title. Guy 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I've changed my mind. A search on Google Scholar [21] suggests that perhaps the name is not so bad. In any case, I cannot think of a more viable alternative. The meaning is clear; it's just pseudoscience restricted to the domain of mathematics. Michael Kinyon 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability is, as pointed out below, demonstrated by specific coverage in reliable third-party sources, not by our own opinion on how big "big" is. For much of this AfD that was completely ignored by the 'keep' side. Later sources started to be mentioned, but only two third-party sources relating to the same assertion of notability have so far been referenced enough for anyone to actually be able to find and read them. If they were significant enough I could default to keep on the basis of insufficent discussion - however, they consist of an interview and a MobyGames listing showing that a special edition of Ultima IX was named after them, which is a point of minor trivia that might merit a mention in Ultima IX: Ascension, and in terms of WP:WEB qualifies the interview and game listing as passing mentions (they total exactly four sentences in an 11-page interview, one of which is "Yeah", plus the one line in the MobyGames listing). They are therefore not sufficient.

It has been asserted that they received other coverage in some other magazines, but no mention of when or where. That's too vague. If the actual articles can actually be tracked down, so that they can be referenced with issue number and article title, then deletion review can consider them (once they are able to actually read them). At this point in time this is still an article on a website with no adequately verified assertion of notability, and policy requires its deletion. Articles are not innocent until proven guilty - the burden is on the editors of the article.

Incidentally, in my experience your neighbour's Amiga can be crashed by coughing too loudly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Dragons

Fan club for the Ultima series of games, fails WP:V by not having multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources available for it. Recury 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quoting my earlier deprodding rationale: "Any active club, run since 1994, that has a membership roster huge enough to crash your neighbour's Amiga, is probably notable". As for verifiability, we can trust the site itself as a primary source. I'm pretty sure I've seen mentions of the group in mags, just can't remember where right now, it's been years. The bottom line is, anyone who's interested of Ultima series of games is bound to run to these people sooner or later. (disclusure: I happen to be a member, just not an active participant in the inner workings of the group or anything.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V says, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." "Mentions" would not be sufficient, as they are considered trivial coverage. Recury 14:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Here's a small question that came in mind, though - exactly what in the article is questionable enough to warrant verification from third-party sources? Please be specific. (My favorite part from RS: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence".) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure it's all true enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it in the first place. Recury 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And exactly why shouldn't we have an article in the first place? I believe you just shot your arguments: We have here a group that quite likely satisfies notability criteria, and there's not much to complain about verifiability either, if you can't find anything that really needs strict verifying from third parties. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The newsgroup exists, that is a given, and participation on it continues. You can also find mention of it in the Ultima Online for Dummies book as I recall. Possibly some others. If there's anything in the article that's disputed though, delete it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that it exists, only that having an article on it agrees with Wikipedia policy. I should also emphasize that I don't contest any of the information that is in the article itself. Recury 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, given that there's no contentious information in the article, self-published sources are fine with me, and like I said, I think it is in Ultima Online for Dummies. Possibly in some of the other for Dummies books, I don't know for sure. Might even have been included in some Origin products, as a link to their fanclub, but I'm not sure. Oh, and I just found this: [22] which mentions that there was a tribute to the club in the form of the Dragon Edition of Ultima IX. And Origin links to them [23] which seems to make them an official club as well. FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, mentions are not good enough. Recury 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not enough for what? Your question is about verifiability, but you aren't disputing anything that can't be observed on the Web by anyone. Heck, you might even find them mentioned in the Special Thanks section of some of the games or their manuals. Do you really need more? FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article goes into detail about the club's origins on Prodigy. Where on the World Wide Web might this be observed? The article tells us what the customs of the club are. Where on the World Wide Web have these customs been documented and fact checked? Uncle G 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • On the Web, where you can read the UDIC's account of it. Possible on google groups if they've got the postings announcing the formation of the news group. See also WP:RS about Self-published sources when providing an account of themselves. If you want to provide any other account, I suggest you find your sources. FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • "On the Web" is not an answer to my questions. Please answer my questions. Uncle G 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sigh, is someting about an autobiographical entry not clear to you or what? Do you have a sincere dispute with the account given by the club about their existence or what? Seriously, if somebody wanted to verify this in the way you wanted, they could, since this is a factual account but that would be way outside the needs of Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are now actively avoiding answering the questions. Please point to where on the World Wide Web the club's origins on Prodigy may be observed and where on the World Wide Web the customs of the club have been documented and fact checked. Lack of an answer, having been asked three times in a row, will strongly indicate that your assertion of verifiability is a false one. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. TJ Spyke 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has notability, don't think WP:V applies in this case. (signing) SirFozzie 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V doesn't just apply when you feel like it. It's a goddamn policy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the various Wikipolicies quite wisely acknowledge they aren't an iron-clad straitjacket. Besides, the group has been around since at least 1996 according to the IAW. Do you think they've been lying for 10 years? I think given the lack of any claims that any information in the article is wrong, given the lack of any comments on the Internet that they're wrong, that well, the principle that a person's account of themself can be reliable about themself. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A direct quote from WP:V: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding 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 therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are negotiable only at the foundation level, not at the level of the English-language Wikipedia." (Emphasis mine) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if you read further down on the page: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: (blah, blah, all things relevant and not in dispute here). The fact is, there are things that need robust verifiability, and things that don't. Given that anybody can check their website, I'm not seeing any problem with verifiability. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want to use the site in that manner, you'll need to preface every piece of information extracted from the site with a phrase like "The Ultima Dragons website claims that...", in order to bring it in line with that kind of usage. And of course, there's still the bit of WP:RS that says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Maybe it would be different if there were reliable outside sources, but there aren't. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note the word largely. That means there are exceptions, doesn't it?. This, I contend is a clear exception. Why? Because the article is autobiographical. Since this information has been presented for at least 10 years according to the Internet Wayback machine, I doubt they're making it up. And seriously, you can check the internet for Ultima Dragons sites. There are plenty of people who claim membership. Do you think they'd exist if the club didn't? FrozenPurpleCube 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was not listed a reason for the nomination, but I assert notability as it is a large club of several thousand members of a clearly notable family of games, and it has long-standing existence. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not notable. It's a damn fan club for a video game. I am questioning the notability of it, I'm just doing it by saying it isn't important enough for anyone not associated with it to have written about it. Recury 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found some posts on Usenet that indicate that Richard Garriott in several interviews mentioned that the Dragon Edition of Ultima IX was named after him. Pity they didn't say what months, it might make searching easier(still, I will try, so cut me some slack on looking for them, if you please). But still, I think it indicates that notability does exist. After all, if the creator of a well-known game series mentions them as the reason to make a collector's edition of a notable game, that is something substantial. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't. It's cool and all that they seem to recognize you guys, but it's still just a fan club for a video game. Try to look at this from the point of view of someone who doesn't play video games. I still stand by the argument that if you haven't been written about, (not just mentioned, but discussed) then you aren't notable, which is one that Wikipedia policy agrees with. Recury 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys? First, I am not, nor have I ever been an Ultima Dragon(I have, however, played the Ultima games). Second, looking at it from the point of view of someone who doesn't play video games(let alone hasn't played the Ultima series), I realize that that person wouldn't know about the importance of the Ultima series, let alone the fans of it, so IF for some reason they were looking for it, explaining what it was would be quite important. I certainly would't say such a person has any standing to question their notability. They just wouldn't know enough about the subject. Especially one like this one which doesn't always attract that much journalistic or academic interest. (Though Richard Garriot, who does attract that interest, has apparently spoken about them, at least according to what I've found on the usenet site. Now I just need to find the articles. It may take some time, since I'm searching the Wayback machine to see if I can find the old articles.).

FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did find mention of them in an interview with Lord British through the Wayback machine [24]. It's possible there are others, but I don't want to dig around on old gaming sites if there's either no need, or no point. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, on examining the article, and the UDIC website, I felt it was a copyvio so I have purged several sections of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) .
  • And a random comment, putting it here just because I feel the need to ramble a bit: I don't believe verifiability is reason for deletion if the notability can otherwise be established from the sources. In AfD, notability is much more of a factor. We're supposed to be debating whether or not this topic needs to exist as a stand-alone article. Lack of verifiability is a cleanup issue: You can remove unverifiable material from the article, and merge the rest if the article isn't big enough. Lack of verifiability is only an issue when there's absolutely no material that would speak for the notability, for example, saying that a book is a bestseller without telling the book's ISBN or even publisher, and then finding less than 10 google hits for the author, all unrelated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addiotion to that, there's a difference between verifiability of a theory, and verifiability of a fact. There's little, if any theory in the article (nothing like say, Ultima Online's success killed Ultima X), and mostly non-contested facts of an autobiographical nature. Even if the facts aren't verified robustly, that they could be (because they are facts) is a reason to not delete. FrozenPurpleCube 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Descriptions of a club's origins, and of the customs of a club, are not facts. They are syntheses and analyses of raw data. They are required to be verifiable, as is everything in Wikipedia. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A club's origins are facts as they would be events that exist. They can be observed, remembered, and written about. Same with customs. And they have been reported on the club's website. Do you want some scholarly report on it, with peer-review and extensive studies? That seems excessive to me when you haven't even articulated how anything in the article itself is actually in error. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Though I admit bias. However, WP:V is NOT a valid grounds for deletion. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failure to be verifiable is one of the primary reasons for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please read it. Asserting that the verifiability policy does not apply to content will get you exactly nowhere as far as arguing for keeping an article is concerned (or indeed as far as most discussions here in Wikipedia are concerned). If you want to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water, please cite the sources that FrozenPurpleCube is actively avoiding citing, above, to demonstrate that the article is verifiable. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Failure to be verifiable is a reason to delete an article - if you can't find any mentions at all from any source whatsoever that seems remarkable. However, in this case, there's absolutely no reason not to believe the primary source, because even casual digging reveals that the group has been in existence for a long time and their own arguments seem to hold water. This is where this debate turns controversial: The primary source holds water, unlike in many other random sites that tend to get slapped "not verifiable" etc; this is where your friendly hey-we-just-opened-a-website-yesterday tactical nuke of two-penny-website smiting turns into the evil cruftbane of stacked charges, a tool to get articles deleted because of a technicality rather than what plain ordinary common sense says.
        Also, as Wizardry Dragon says below, we're facing a small dilemma here. People who toss around "not verifiable" usually follow it up with "two google hits". In this particular case, "not verifiable" is followed up with "23,100 google hits", which in this case isn't followed up with "...but most are irrelevant". this is a little bit of a contradiction and a reason for doubt. There's reasonable doubt that "not verifiable" is bunk, no matter how you put it. "Not verifiable" in this case needs clear demonstration and clear example proving otherwise, because the group has visibility. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rather think the person saying it's unverifiable should prove that it is, rather than the other way around. We live in a world where it is guilt that must be proven, not innocence.

In either event if the current version of an article is not of good quality, it should not be deleted, but improved. Deleting content simply because it is unfinished is not good editorial process no matter what way you spin it. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know for a fact that there are plenty of third party sources that mention the Ultima Dragons, they've been mentioned in quite a few pieces of gaming literature. The problem is no one's really gone to the effort to track them down and properly write that information in and cite it. I myself have added information on some of the projects that they've participated in. One of them Ultima V: Lazarus got a lot of coverage in the gaming and general media, including PC Gamer, Slashdot, and Computer Gaming World. By association with the many projects like that alone I'd think the group is notable. As to verifiability, it's a valid complaint that it hasn't been properly cited or verified, but it can be. How about letting those of us editing it do that instead of just deleting it because it isn't up to snuff? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously, I was the one who prodded it in the first place. I believe they exist, but I just don't see them as notable enough that there needs to be an article on them. A brief mention in the Ultima article would be sufficient. Nandesuka 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - I believe the UDIC fufills the criteria for notability of internet content. They've been the subject of several magazine articles, interviews, etc. all of independant, third-party sources. Yes, the article doesn't reference them and I'm working on fixing that myself, since few others seem inclined to fixing it, however, it is true, and that is -exactly- one of the three criteria for governing such content. See WP:WEB and also the proposed WP:ORG. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must also disagree. The article itself is sufficiently long that it wouldn't fit well in the main Ultima article, and trimming it to fit would be removing too much useful information. FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT and WP:SOCK. — CharlotteWebb 00:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Formula One season

Wikipedia is Not crystal ball--W36 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wah Fu

No such area. The content of this article is just copied by its nearby places like Waterfall Bay and Kellett Bay. According to zh article, it is part of the Kellett Bay. Of course we can redirect this to Wah Fu Estate. --minghong 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is the topographical name used to refer to the vicinity of the Wah Fu Estate, e.g. the Wah Kwai Estate? If the decision is not to keep, then merge and redirect. Don't delete. — Instantnood 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wah Fu exists in Hong Kong. It should be kept seperately from Wah Fu Estate. In the case of redirecting and merging the content, we can keep the content in the redirected/merged article instead of removing some information. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GdayPal

Nonnotable web forum, Alexa ranking of 2,108,258. Note: All images in article were deleted under speedy category i3, licensed "for Wikipedia use only", not under GFDL. NawlinWiki 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anybody want to guess what the creator this article is calling himself? Yep, it's Gdaypal. Delete - vanity and spam. BTLizard 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet criteria in WP:WEB, and doesn't have any reliable sources to verify information.
  • G'nite Pal. Delete Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity & WP:V. Jpe|ob 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all, I'm the creator of the page in question and operator of the GdayPal website. I urge you to consider the GdayPal forums as a distinct and valuable entry into wikipedia as the largest open free gay forums to men in Australia. I'll concede the fact the website isn't well know out side of Australia but neither is OUTeverywhere.com a UK website similar to our own list on Wiki, and I feel both website deserve mentioning. I started the page in the hopes that our members would also contribute. The site is a valuable resource to all gay men living in Australia as it cover opinions and fact face gay men in a modern western society. Never the less I will happily take the page down if that is the consensuses of this forum. | 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdaypal (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website has appeared in the premier Australian gay publications SX National, Bent Mag and Sydney Star Observer consistently over the past 12 months. Is seen by 400,000 views every week on OutTV and SelectTV on QueerTV in Australia and Canada. But the real value of the discussions themselves are what stand out as unique and unadulterated critical opinion on Australian gay cultural issues. Researchers searching wikipedia, looking to understanding Australian gay culture, would find GdayPal an essential social knowledge resource. These are the largest community gay forums available to men in Australia, I urge you to seriously consider keeping this list.| 10:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) --Gdaypal 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdaypal[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. Please edit as necessary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Breeg

This article was previously deleted for failing WP:V and WP:RS (here) and was recreated hours later and later survived a not-terribly-active afd with a no consensus vote (here). Suggest deletion with protection from recreation. Recury 14:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete information? I see nothing wrong with this entry.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy (SWG) rev 2

Deprodded by PlantersNut (talk · contribs · count) whom created their account 2 minutes earlier. I'm guessing this is fancruft by members of "the Imperial forces of Wanderhome, a server on the MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies". A user made mod.

Probably best you read the article itself to understand why Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Also note the infobox is information regarding the game, not the character.--Andeh 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, original title already salted, which is why we have "rev 2". A strong message should be sent that recreation under any title will be regarded as Vandalism. Clearly it's a sock of the same author, as content is identical. -- Fan-1967 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, don't delete! I thought everyone knew about Zippy... 203.208.28.171
    Sorry, but I don't believe the average person plays on "the Imperial forces of Wanderhome, a server on the MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies". Unless you have evidence to proove otherwise.--Andeh 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A OR biography about player's pet on a single server of an MMO doesn't satisfy WP:FICT. --- The Bethling(Talk) 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some virtual mascot on some server; not all players play on the server, probably not all who play on the server care either, and no one outside of the game probably has any interest. Yep, I'm all for relisting it here, let's humour the proponents of the article by giving it a fair shot at AfD. Then let's delete and salt the darn thing. I find it highly unlikely there will be any... media developments. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe you people censor something just 'cause you don't care about it. I hope this guy reposts the article a million times, because this is wrong. 202.30.206.156 (talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informationism

Neologism with less than 1000 google hits, many of which have divergant meanings. Cited definitions in the article come from urban dictioanry and wikiblogs. Artw 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nonce word without any real contextual meaning is still a nonce word without any real contextual meaning, despite the number of google hits. --Ezeu 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of nonce doesn't fit with the Wikipedia definition, but then maybe you have a nonce definition of it. --59.17.183.223 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of special forces units

There is no guidance on the qualification for inclusion, a suggestion that some constraint be applied has been unanswered for a week now. As it stands the article is merely fodder for anyone whose armed forces contain mildly irregular units to add them, indeed some of the country entries are getting ridiculous. Justification for deletion include:

  • Verifiability WP:V: The accuracy of a statement is generally inherently not verifiable.
  • WP is not a List WP:NOT: The article does not contain any elaboration.
  • Its a cruft maget for any old fanboy cruft.
  • Special Forces in general are just about adequately discussed in the Special Forces article and in a number of specific articles which are developing an improving level of verifiability and reliabale sources. ALR 15:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the accuracy of this article is verifiable, all you have to do is look for the respective government's own documents in many cases. Furthremore, Jane's Amphibious and Special Forces is a reputable external source. If you've got a problem with fanboys adding bad content, try dealing with it directly. FrozenPurpleCube 15:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more related to the Elite units, which appear in that source. Any old unit with a line in balaclavas and mirror shades seem to fit into that, so you end up with some countries listing justabout every tinpot outfit. The only one I can say is accurate is the UK, and even then a couple of editors insist on listing a whole host of dross on a regular basis, that's pretty clear cut because whilst the UK does not have official policy, there is mention of the make-up of DSF in a Hansard (parliamentary) comment.
In which case, your concerns are best addressed on the talk page of that article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note if you review it that nobody actually engages on the talk page, many of the edits are fly-by additions, I'm tempted to cite request everything and then delete everything without a reference in about a week. But to be honest the page adds no value without some form of QA, and there is no motivation behind adding that.ALR 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might wish to look and see if adding a header on the page to inform people not to just add stuff? FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Insurgency resurgent since September 13, 2006

There's no reason for this seperate article to exist, it should simply be part of the main Taliban insurgency article. A Clown in the Dark 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. The arguments on both sides of the keep-delete debate were well-balanced. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lytton-Cobbold

This page is redundant. The current owner of Knebworth House is already listed on the Knebworth House page. Nekohakase 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added more data to the article on his screenwriting career. Note that his professional credits seem to be mostly under the name of "Henry Cobbold", rather than "Henry Lytton-Cobbold". They seem somewhat marginal, but re-examination may be warranted. (Incidentally, unless there's some other Henry Lytton-Cobbold he has to be disambiguated from, the page should not be moved to include his middle name.) Choess 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per the IMDb credits for 'Henry Cobbold', I don't feel he's currently notable as a screenwriter. The Healey article you reference is so sycophantic that I don't consider it a creditable source; The Shooting Party assistant work appears in the IMDb under 'Henry Ditton-Cobbold', and that entry doesn't list Water.) Espresso Addict 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, as I said, the professional credits are marginal, but at least know they're mentioned. I assume "Henry Ditton-Cobbold" is a typo in the database for "Henry Litton-Cobbold"; people on this side of the water seem to have a great deal of trouble with his name. Choess 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete screenwriting credits are trivial, the prospect of owning a notable house does not confer notability any more than owning it would, being heir to a barony is of no importance whatsoever (nor, re crystal ball gazing, will being baron thingy confer notability in my view). The proposed policy is just that, proposed: anyone can write an essay. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As creator of the page, I agree with Jcuk comments. I think being heir to a famous title and the owner of a famous house is sufficient to justify a page to record what is know about the man. People can then decide for themselves if he deserves the title and the house! Nwsmith 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a necessary and informative page. The family is well-known and he is the owner of a famous concert venue. What purpose is served by deleting it? The only one I can think of is the deletion of noteworthy information. 76.16.75.77 04:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Davies Photographer

Delete. Subject does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. No sources given for claim of international award. "Benjamin Davies"+ANZANG does not come up with anything in Google; neither does "Benjamin John Davies"+ANZANG. "Benjamin Davies"+Photographer only shows 54 Ghits, none of them particularly helpful. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Tucker

Comment Definitely not. Found no related google hits. Forbsey 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking about Ghits but 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 other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level. WilyD 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay firstly the Scottish Second Division is not 'fully professional' - Brian Tucker's club, Greenock Morton, are, to the best of my knowledge, the only full-time professional club in the league. The article states that Tucker is a player playing at youth team level, i.e. he is not listed as being part of the first team squad, as shown here and here. I understand that Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate however in my opinion Greenock Morton are not of a sufficient stature to warrent articles on youth players - i.e. most first team squad players don't even have articles! Forbsey 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this article on the basis that even though he (Brian Tucker) was a part of the U-18 youth sqaud this also made him third choice goalkeeper for the first team and in the event of an injury to the first 2 keepers he would have played. However we (Greenock Morton) have signed a new 3rd choice 'keeper. Therefore even though I created the article I now agree there is justification for deleting it.Jonathan Mitchell 02:05, 22 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cooke (opera singer)

Questionable notability. I don't think he's a very well-known opera singer here, unless someone can fill in some links or something significant. Nekohakase 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was is to KISS, delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineerboards.com

Speedy deletion tag removed. No Google hits for (link:www.engineerboards.com) and Alexa traffic rank of 1,290,522. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --  Netsnipe  ►  16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Grays

Nonnotable amateur baseball team. NawlinWiki 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. The league itself is barely notable enough for an article; individual teams (hell, even a 146-peat league champion) do not need their own articles. This is the only team in this league that has its own article, and there's a good reason none of the other teams do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kicking222 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable organization. As such, there are no credible, third-party sources available as required by WP:V. See 19 unique GHits here. --Satori Son 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Glen 12:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman: The Movie

unreferenced, appears non-notable - CobaltBlueTony 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See related AfDs for Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman.Hornplease 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Could this be merged with either of the above? Maybe keeping one page, not three? American007 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreferenced. --Dweller 10:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION This is actually Bradley Laborman, I was notified about this situation a while back and I just want to tell my fans thank you. I want to point out however, the people who run Wikipedia have a better understanding of what is notable and what is not. I am grateful for everyone who has spoke up for me and my work, but if Wikipedia does not wish for my account to be on here, I would respect that. I have alot on my plate with the application to NBC and other networks talking to me. If I am not on now, please believe me someday I wil be on the pages of Wikipedia, until then, please respect the site and respect the show by being appropriate fans and not terrorist. I also see now that FACEBOOK is now open to anyone, I would invite fans who do not have facebook to join that and join our many fan groups there. I frequesnt those alot. Thank you. BradmanTWB
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all into Stupid Dream. However, if anything notable can be written about the two singles (Pure Narcotic (song) & Stranger by the Minute (song)) that is long enough that they require their own articles, I don't see why they can't have their own articles (but only if such content will be too much to include in Stupid Dream). Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Less (song)

Non-notable song. Unlikely to ever be more than a stub. Any unique information should be merged into the article for the album. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for songs from the same album for the same reason:


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Andeh 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water warz

Contested prod. One-person company, renting water balloon launchers for parties in Orlando. Nowhere close to meeting WP:CORP. Company website is a blogspot.com page. -- Fan-1967 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarketpage

Non-notable website. Nekohakase 16:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mico32

Non notable product, fails WP:CORP. LatticeMico32 gets 28 distinct Google hits. Mico32 gets 59 Ghits, many unrelated to the product. No independent professional reviews. Was prodded. Fram 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How So In what whay does it not meet the requirements? As far as low hit count 9/21/06 Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 122 for LatticeMico32. (0.26 seconds)" Not bad for being available for 4 days.
In what way? There are two criteria given for products, and it doesn't come close to any of those. It may be good enough for an article later on, but we only have articles after the fact, we don't have articles for every person, band, product, book, company, ... that may become notable one day. Look around at other Deletion discussions and you'll get an idea which companies and products get deleted. Fram 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Article can be recreated if/when product attains widespread notability. --Alan Au 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against future recreation if the core becomes notable. Normally I'd be biased in favor of anything open source, but I don't think this is established enough for an article yet. I tried downloading the software and not everything is actually open source. The proper approach is to write an article after a product gains "additional traction", not before. Wmahan. 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be considered a corporate product. As someone with electrical engineering background, I recognize what this product is. Its some company's implementation of the Harvard architecture, and it fails WP:CORP for reliable sources verifying it. Furthurmore, things like this come out all the time, and there's a mess of companies. We need substantial proof of a company's particular product's 'notability' to warrent an article on it, and there's already articles on FPGA, Harvard architecture, and microcontroller of which microcontroller could be expanded to mention "soft" ones if proper sources can be found. --Kevin_b_er 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Please smooth over as necessary.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Subject does not warrant its own article (merge with Fagan inspection). Title is ambiguous and there is no context, so if kept I recommend moving the page and adding {{context}}. HappyDog 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There have been no reliable sources presented showing verifiability. If anyone wishes to transwiki, feel free to message me and I'll give you a copy. Wickethewok 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footmen Wars

Footmen Wars is a type of multiplayer mode made up by fans for a computer game. The top Google results are to this article and a load of forums. There is absolutely no evidence of it being the subject of multiple non-trivial works (WP:WEB).
Also nominating: Footmen Frenzy. -- Steel 17:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay West

Australian Idol contestant who did not make it to the finals. Page history suggests article created by whoever runs his website. Serserse 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Regardless of whatever Lindsay's results were or were not on Idol, he is still a working musician within the Melbourne and Australian music industry and has just as much right to his place in popular cultural history as anyone else. So therefore, the article should remain. — Bacibella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Lindsay West is an Australian artist who is trying to make it in the music industry. He appeared on Australian Idol in 2005 and got as far as the wildcard stage, one stage before being in the finals. This article is not rude or innapropriate in any way - those are the ones that need to be deleted. All it is is a short biography on an Australian musical artist, who may not have a number 1 song, but who has done well and worked hard for his achievements. Surely this can be acknowledged in an article in Wikipedia. — 61.68.231.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete -- not notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. QazPlm 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given some of the topics and subjects that currently have a page on Wikipedia, I can see no reason why this page should not be allowed to exist. Australian Idol is a show that generates a lot of talk, and thousands of people every year apply for a shot at the big time. The fact that Lindsay got to the final 30 entrants in 2005, and the manner in which he got that far, is surely reason enough to keep this page active. Itswin 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Itswin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - If this artist were to be deleted, then ALL noteable Australian Idol contestants not reaching first or second place status would need to be deleted. Wikipedia is a resource, therefore isn't it in everyone's best interest to keep it as abundant in information as possible? And I see this artist's listing is clearly up-to-date and accurate. There are other vocalists who reached the same stage of competition in Idol (eg: Ngaiire Joseph) who are making their mark gradually, and we don't see them being unfairly deleted from discussion pages. West is a singer-songwriter first and foremost, and active in the Australian music scene in more than one capacity, and that's credibility enough to remain here, in my books. Every artist has something unique to offer, there's room for all. Surely you people have more pressing matters than to be as petty as requesting fatuitous deletions from websites! Really!!! Lahelia 07:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Lahelia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - So Lindsay West is not a hugely famous recording artist (yet!!). But what he is, is a very talented singer-songwriter making a go of it out there in one of the worlds hardest industries. I fail to see any reason why his entry should be deleted. We should be getting behind such people and supporting them in their efforts to make something of themselves and share their talents with the world. Surely Wikipedia can assist him with this by including his article.Supporting Australian Artists 00:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Supporting Australian Artists (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP -Hey now! What’s the dealio?? Im sorry but isn’t the purpose of Wiki (being an encyclopedia and all) to be used as a valuable source of information for individuals to go to and find out more on things?? Hmm.. I think YES!! So then, doesn’t this indeed mean that it should contain as much information for people to search specific subjects? I MUST say… I think deleting West’s page defeats the purpose of this site entirely! Why have the site at all if you’re going to go and delete pages that don’t count to YOU? What about all the Lindsay supporters? As a supporter of both Lindsay’s AND Wikipedia’s I am most outraged that the even thought of deleting such a great musician’s page has even been put across in the first place! What a JOKE! This guy works just as hard, if not, harder than any other muso out there… therefore I do believe he deserves to have his page kept! I bet if we were talking about a million dollar international artist, this “deletion” thing would never of even come up at all! He should most definately NOT be deleted. What about all the people who come onto your site to view his page! He is an interesting and inspiring person to many people, I really do feel it isn’t fair for his page to go! All I’ve got to say is “GO Lindsay! Keep rockin! You got loads of support!!” Cuddly giggles 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Cuddly giggles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete This guy has done nothing besides appear on a talent quest TV show. Come back when he has some hits on the chart. --Michael Johnson 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn game show contestant. Is every person who achieves minor success on TV important enough for an entry? MichelleG 08:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per above. A Google search indicates no notability outside of the website dedicated to him and Australian Idol. Even within Australian Idol his notability is questionable as the wiki page fails to mention him. JGardner 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the proper Idol series, per Petaholmes. Yamaguchi先生 22:03, 29 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zi-Com Productions

this NON-NOTABLE "company" is so tiny that they haven't even made anything yet. Nekohakase 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Constant

Non-notable band. Nekohakase 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedDevil

Non-notable aspiring wrestler. WP:VAIN, WP:BIO. Author removed speedy and prod tags. --Onorem 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Glen 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Laborman

appears non-notable; part of series of articles cleverly plugging this person and his show - CobaltBlueTony 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom 263 Ghits--Jusjih 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradman: The Movie. Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appologize if this looks like a 'Clever plug' But I am seriously just a fan who felt his was notable. I have other articles, but I am not sure what you consider credible sources.MarySwope
  • Comment. Like MarySwope I also am a concerned fan. Could we just merge his other two articles, Tonight with Bradman and Bradman the Movie into this one? That seems most fair to everyone involved. American007 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would that be allowed? If it would I would say you should do that, Bradman is a good entertainer, don't judge him too fast.12.214.20.35
  • ATTENTION This is actually Bradley Laborman, I was notified about this situation a while back and I just want to tell my fans thank you. I want to point out however, the people who run Wikipedia have a better understanding of what is notable and what is not. I am grateful for everyone who has spoke up for me and my work, but if Wikipedia does not wish for my account to be on here, I would respect that. I have alot on my plate with the application to NBC and other networks talking to me. If I am not on now, please believe me someday I wil be on the pages of Wikipedia, until then, please respect the site and respect the show by being appropriate fans and not terrorist. I also see now that FACEBOOK is now open to anyone, I would invite fans who do not have facebook to join that and join our many fan groups there. I frequesnt those alot. Thank you. BradmanTWB
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catchpole 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wesolowski

non-notable. Nekohakase 18:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. —Mets501 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youare.tv

Per WP:CORP and the precedent guide to deletion of corporate articles:

"Small companies are not generally notable" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Companies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebrandt (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • I second the vote to delete this article 135.245.8.37 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies WP:WEB #1--Irishpunktom\talk 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - YouAreTV provides a service specifically to indepedent filmmakers and television show makers. Because it is niche does not mean that it should not be documented. Additionally, the site is documented in congressional hearings for Net Netrality, as well as appeared in an article in the Independent Film Magazine. Would the Wikipedia been written up in the Wikipedia before it was big even though it was a very profound idea and provided a service?
  • Keep - This article has multiple connections to Network Neutrality and this entity has appeared in Congressional testimony before the US Senate Committee.
  • Keep - Satisifies WP:ORG #1 and #2, Noted in multiple 3rd party publications.

I vote to keep this article. The digital media space is in a tipping point and all references to companies dealing in this space should be kept for informational purposes

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

The result was Delete. Glen 12:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Diatribe Magazine

non-notable student paper. Nekohakase 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowwen Hèze

no assertion that meets WP:MUSIC - CobaltBlueTony 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found nothing at Allmusic, but lots of google hits referring to reviews and discography. I do not speak Dutch.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaZilla

Surely MediaWiki's bug site isn't notable. It is worth noting its Alexa rank (558) is shared by Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and Wikispecies Computerjoe's talk 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bugzilla already exists. --Gray Porpoise 10:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bugzilla also exists as an article. Wikipedia:MediaZilla with our without the strange capitalization redirects to Wikipedia:Bugzilla. Anomo 11:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (sorry Brad - maybe after NBC?). Glen 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight with Bradman

non-notable cable access show - CobaltBlueTony 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tonight with Bradman is broadcast not only on cable access, but syndicated around the United States. A Search for "Tonight with Bradman" on Goolgle brings up well over 700+ sources of where TWB can be seen. It is also featured on iTunes, YouTube and other online boradcast services. There are several programs, Any Milinokis, etc. who wilm at a Public Access facility for syndication. The program has hosted Britney Spears, Playboy, Girls Gone Wild, Kenny Kramer, Wink Martindale, and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarySwope (talk • contribs) 14:18 September 21, 2006
  • Comment. What steps are keeping this from being removed from the delete list? I added notable guest.MarySwope
AfDs are usually closed after five days. --Ezeu 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete Bradley Laborman, as the person himself (along with his show) have absolutely no notability. Both articles contains one link to a "reliable source", that being the same article in the Des Moines Register, and the article is only half about the man and his show. The Tonight with Bradman page has no assertions of notability besides claims that are unverified (such as having Britney Spears on the show- until I see video of it, I'll refuse to believe that Britney Spears went to Iowa to appear on a cable access / Internet show), and the claims of celebrity guests probably wouldn't be enough to qualify it for a WP article, anyway. -- Kicking222 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The whole point of the Iowa newspaper article is that any ol' local cable access host can now go nationwide on the Internet. That doesn't give any such host, or his show, notability. And it doesn't look like Britney to me, either. NawlinWiki 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern Is this more because of the fact that he is from Iowa? I was watching his program last night, and a person called with concerns about the Wikipedia editing. October 8, 2006 is going to be announced by Mayor Ross Wilburn as "Bradman Day". I am not sure if you realize this, but Bradley Laborman kept a town in complete communication when a tornado struck Iowa City this fall, and no network affiliates were there to cover it. Also if you want an answer to the question of notability, I guess, if you don't feel he's notable maybe Wikipedia isn't an accurate source for information.128.255.107.80
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 128.255.107.80
    • Reply. Instead of being hostile and demeaning, please respect our procedures for verifying claims (WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE) and do the research to prove it. That's how anything gets placed here, because it comes from third-party reputable sources. - CobaltBlueTony 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyI find it hard to be told not to be demeaning when all I hear are comments about how being from Iowa makes you not-notable. I find it amazing that people who have not done anything to help a community and make a difference can decide if someone who has made a difference is notable or not.128.255.107.80
        • Comment. Hi there! Nobody is saying that being from Iowa makes someone nonnotable. We have articles on plenty of people from Iowa!! The problem with your article is that you havent't verified any claims that you have made. If you can add sources to the article to back up your claims, it may very well be able to stay. Srose (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 65.110.244.107
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 71.213.204.49
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 128.255.203.67
  • FAN COMMENT* As the Director of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and our television show: Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website.With the help of many TWB was able to keep the town of Iowa City in the know for 5..Yes FIVE hours after a tornado ripped through the town. This is not your average Public Access Television show! THANK YOU 216.51.196.88 Director Little Nicky of Tonight With Bradman.
  • COMMENT I am the orignal author of this text, I appologize for any other comments that are inapproriate, that comes with the audience base. I just want help in preserving this page abd the Bradley Laborman page. I feel he is notable, I have other articles, but I am confused because I have already used two papers, and the google searches, in what you consider notable. The Wiki help section cannot assist me. Please I ask for assistance.MarySwope
    • This is a television show that is broadcast over Internet. The policies and guidelines that apply are thus Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Your best course of action is to cite sources to demonstrate that the primary notability criterion is satisfied — in other words that people independent of the show and its creators/promoters have written and published non-trivial works about the show itself. The Register article contains only a couple of sentences that are actually about the subject of this article. The Press-Citizen and Daily Iowan articles are far more what you should be looking for, because they are substantial, detailed, and not simple rehashes of publicity blurb. They demonstrate that something is notable because it has been noted. (And remember that books, journal articles, and suchlike also count. "Published works" means all forms of published work.) Uncle G 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Press-Citizen and Daily Iowan articles show that the primary notability criterion in WP:WEB is just about satisfied, although more is always better. Weak keep. Uncle G 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you for the help, I appreciate it..MarySwope
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 12.217.252.184
  • FAN COMMENT Although 'Tonight with Bradman' may not be nationally or internationally known, it in fact IS a big deal in the Iowa City area. It is, as far as I know, the only public access show that people will make time in their schedules to watch each week. Also, I believe that one of the reasons it has not gotten more press coverage is for the simple fact that it's a public access show. It might be worth a one-time feature article, but the newspapers would feel that any more would be kind of a waste of space for a public access show, no matter how big it is (unless it was a state-wide phenomenon or something). Despite it's relative 'smallness', I personally believe the show should at least be allowed a spot on Wikipedia. Thank you. 63.252.23.150
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 12.217.241.2
  • Comment. An article about this show came up on AfD before, and was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TONIGHT WITH BRADMAN (TWB). Maybe the show has become more notable since then, I'm not sure. But I would like to get some clarfication on the first comment above. Does the show actually air on broadcast or cable television anywhere besides Iowa City? Or is it seen outside Iowa City only via the Internet? Also, to anyone planning to submit another identical FAN COMMENT, please give us reasons why this show is notable in your own words instead. --Metropolitan90 02:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 128.255.177.25
    • Copying and pasting this text serves no purpose. All of these comments, which contribute nothing to the discussion because they are simply the expressions of personal wishes rather than arguments based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that demonstrate an understanding of what the purpose of this project actually is, will be ignored by the closing administrator. The only useful contribution to this discussion from a fan has been from MarySwope (talk · contribs). Please follow xyr example. Uncle G 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. I think that Brad and the show are great and should get paid for what they do. THANK YOU 70.142.45.254
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU
  • INPUT I'm currently studying in Germany and was introduced to TWB through a friend. Since then I have enjoyed watching what I can on their main website, along with downloading podcasts and recommending the show to other friends. So far it seems that the main argument for not allowing TWB a wikipedia page is that the show is viewed as being insignificant or trivial. May I please remind you that all things start out small and it's only when they're given the chance to grow that they evolve into something of the "repute" wikipedia seems to desire. For what it's worth, TWB appears to be quite popular (or at least well known) among Iowa City Residents and as it's being viewed by people in multiple countries (let alone continents) I fail to see why it does not deserve a wikipedia page. Surely if Page France and the definition of 'Bank Reserve' get a page, a great show with a fanbase like that of Tonight with Bradman should deserve one also.--132.180.252.57 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION This is actually Bradley Laborman, I was notified about this situation a while back and I just want to tell my fans thank you. I want to point out however, the people who run Wikipedia have a better understanding of what is notable and what is not. I am grateful for everyone who has spoke up for me and my work, but if Wikipedia does not wish for my account to be on here, I would respect that. I have alot on my plate with the application to NBC and other networks talking to me. If I am not on now, please believe me someday I wil be on the pages of Wikipedia, until then, please respect the site and respect the show by being appropriate fans and not terrorist. I also see now that FACEBOOK is now open to anyone, I would invite fans who do not have facebook to join that and join our many fan groups there. I frequesnt those alot. Thank you. BradmanTWB
  • Delete per WP:TV and WP:N. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

Redundant article on nonnotable organization as per Talk:Myron Evans CH 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hehe - I read 't Hooft's essay a few weeks ago, and was wondering when the ECE was going to become an issue here. It is interesting to see, though, from what perspective this has happened. Now where was I? Delete per nomination. Byrgenwulf 19:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. As with most list vs category debates, this one was about even in terms of the weight of arguments, and this wasn't the overwhelming consensus to delete that I require to delete an article. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of educators

Already 45 kilobytes and growing. Someone put a lot of work into this, and it pains me to nominate it for deletion, but I fail to see the need for this list. The list itself is redundant to Category:Educators, Category:Educators by nationality etc. Each and every subsection already has a corresponding category, and it seems the list is organized and populated by mirroring existing categories. Ezeu 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redundancy is not merely "some", but entire. --Ezeu 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the redundancy doesn't exist, please see WP:LIST if you're unclear on this point. WilyD 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redundancy is not merely "some", but total. Do you really mean we should list all educators even though the term "educator" is ambiguous? Consider that the number of educators include Academics (PHDs and Professors), lecturers, primary school teachers, kindergarten and preschool teachers, and various other other disciplines all over the world. They are all educators, that is why we have Category:Educators.--Ezeu 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ezeu, you do have some point. But I still think that your arguments are not enough to justify the deletion of this article. Besides, since we have to put up with all those sodding Pokémon character articles, this one is perfectly acceptable.--Húsönd 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list passes the Pokémon test, but that is merely a Chewbacca defense. --Ezeu 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I should have guessed that this Pokémon argument had been used before, but wouldn't imagine that it even has its own Wikipedia guidelines. Outmaneuvered, I change my stance to Neutral.--Húsönd 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid argument presented for deletion, please see WP:LIST if you don't understand the point of lists, and why they do not duplicate categories. WilyD 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why in this case you feel this is a useful complement to a category? except for a few redlinks, I don't see this as exemplifying any of the advantages of lists, and this seems to have the disadvantages mentioned. Thanks, William Pietri 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the storage of redlinks is one of the purposes of lists, yes, known as the development purpose. The list also provides for navigation and groups things together in a way that provides information. In essence, it serves a number of purposes, some of which can't be served by categories (i.e. development) and there's no real reason to delete beyond I don't like lists presented here at all. It's verifiable, encyclopaedic (and actually a half decent article). WilyD 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having read the material, I believe understand the theoretical advantages. However, in this specific case, I don't see them as applying in a substantial way. Do you have reasons why this specific list is practically more useful to a degree that outweighs the additional maintenance burden over categories? I have the impression this is more a general thing for you. Thanks, William Pietri 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I generally defend verifiable, encyclopaedic lists at AfD - I have no real specific attachment to this list. As for the Burden of Maintenance" it's obvious to me that someone has taken that burden upon themselves, thus for the Wikipedia project as a whole, it's essentially zero maintenance. The list and category aren't redundant, so the existence of one doesn't argue for the deletion of the other, the category can exist in parallel, and do well what it does well, and poorly what it does poorly. To delete this when its in good shape just because Well, one day it could become a problem seems unconvincing. WilyD 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD Jcuk 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD Hello32020 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Good effort, but the page seems to replicate what category pages already do better. Visually, this page is much less user-friendly than the category pages. You could sort the names in a more spatially understandable way, but you'd probably just end up with something like a whole bunch of category pages stuck together. The only advantage I can think of is that you could do a name find across all the educator names on the same page, but sincec wikipedia already has a search engine this is redundant. Bwithh 01:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bwithh. Glad to change my mind if I see some value that outweighs the maintenance burden. William Pietri 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listicrufts. It duplicates information of categories. This list which is going down the road of indiscriminate information. There are infinite ways of slicing the matrix, and I can see where this is going: there will be interminable sub-sub-categorisation of the lists, and will end up with indiscriminate slices and subsections like "Educators' subject by ethnicity and sexual preference" or "Educators' subject by religion, etc, etc, etc. ;-) Ohconfucius 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wholly redundant to the categories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It fails WP:V since it fails to cite sources and it is redundant to a category (the only possible advantage it has here is a list of redlinks, which could be better maintained as a list of educators lacking articles on Wikipedia). Having somebody working on it doesn't mean it is maintainable - in a dynamic list like this they would have to re-check every record every day in order to ensure its accuracy. Yomanganitalk 10:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 19:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists are useful when the set of items to be listed is strictly limited, and when there's some value in listing them even if they don't have an article. Neither of these appears to be the case here - as others have pointed out, there are a lot of preschool teachers in the US. Categories appear to be the superior solution here, especially as nearly all of the educators listed already have articles. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists with such broad subjects are almost entirely pointless, and have no place here. As User:Zetawoof said, lists should only be used with a reasonably limited set of items. "Educators" is a humongous category of people; there are tons of them around the world and throughout history that are not, and never will be, included in this list. There is no point in having such a list here, unless we plan on becoming a White pages directory someday. Groupings like this are best left to the Category system. WarpstarRider 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list, for all the reasons lists are ordinarily useful. Despite the claims that this is identical to the category, it's obviously not, based on the most cursory of inspections. No category presents all these names on one page for simple browsing; no category includes the redlinks that might tempt someone to develop an article. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue for me is not utility alone, but the maintenance burden versus utility. Could you point us to some other very large list pages that you find useful and are well maintained? Thanks, William Pietri 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by the maintenance burden--how is it greater for this page than any other? Anyway, there are tons of large useful list pages, see e.g. List of anarchists or List of atheists just from the A's. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category pages are automatically maintained, while lists are manual; that seems like more work to me, especially if the categories already exist. Maybe I'm underestimating the number of anarchists or atheists out there, but those lists seem much smaller in scope than the domain carved out by a list of educators from Socrates to Barbie (Teacher Barbie, I presume). I guess I'm still not seeing the potential for this article to be a gem. Thanks for the response, though; it was helpful to hear your perspective on lists. William Pietri 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The maintenance difference is overplayed; articles have to be added manually to both types, both have a page that needs to be kept free of vandalism, and both need to be watched for false entries. The last point is actually infinitely harder with a category since movement of articles in and out of a category cannot be watched, so far as I understand. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). --Ezeu 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian education system

Little solid content, reads like an essay, says little even for its short length. Djcartwright 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten this article by cobbling stuff together from Education in Germany and the original speech from Senator O'Connell. Please re-read it and reconsider your votes as you see fit. --Richard 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This still needs a lot of work, but it is obviously a valid topic and not a copyvio any longer. up+l+and 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone could rewrite the copyvio in their own words and flesh out the article again . . . Dlohcierekim 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, I tried that but much of that speech is, with all due respect to Senator O'Connell, POV garbage. I salvaged a little bit of it but I wouldn't spend much more time with that speech. --Richard 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this link
Here's a quote from the intro paragraph of the above webpage
Among other achievements, the early Prussian state set standards of public administration and education still in place today.
And this link
In a profound sense, the public schools are not an American institution. They were modeled on the system of public education found in authoritarian Prussia in the early 19th century.
And finally this link
the designs of Chalotais were first introduced not in France but in Prussia, where our public education system was born

--Richard 06:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep See the German Wikipedia [27] for material that could be included on Prussian educational innovations. Clarification: I wrote this after the article was rightly cut back to a stub with the removal of the senatorial WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN It has been completely rewritten and has some actual informative content now. Djcartwright 21:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Of Purgatory

This is a non-notable game (that also fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE). Searching for the title and "role playing game" yields no results. Erechtheus 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Glen 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German given names

This article was proposed for deletion by WP:PROD twice, so it has to go to WP:AFD. This list is an unsourced almost indiscriminate collection of information. The contents (list of names used in Germany) do not correspond to the title. Delete per WP:NOT and the complete lack of prose content. (It is also most probably copied from somewhere). Kusma (討論) 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Leprechaun

WP:PROD contested by anon. Original concern was "not encyclopedic". Seems to be a random YouTube fad. Delete as non-notable recent event. Kusma (討論) 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Delete as clearly not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or merge with the Internet phenomenon page. The video may have been a fad, but it reached a pretty big audience and is notable enough among teenagers and college students. --PatadyBag 04:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Would have to concur with Patadybag, seeing as it would only be big enough for a stub on its own.Norton112200 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HAhah.. this was one of those HILARIOUS internet video clips. Like the star wars kid. I'm amazed you guys haven't heard of it. --DjSamwise 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep As stated earlier, this story deserves to be linked to the internet phenomena. As it was broadcasted on television and also reported on the internet, it is an article which can have references added to it.--pg07 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep belongs in the growing category of internet phenomena viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. Sfacets 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator doesn't want this deleted, and nor does anybody else. To me, this edit, where an editor nominated the article for speedy deletion on the grounds of it being patent nonsense, which it patently is not, appears to be simple vandalism. And this entire discussion has sprung up out of a good faith followup to a piece of vandalism. Uncle G 12:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleej Times

Page was incorrectly speedied; I'm sending it to regular AFD instead as a matter of procedure. Personally, I think it needs NPOV cleanup but shouldn't be deleted outright. --Alan Au 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. While tempted to relist this due to lack of consensus, looking at the history, I can see that this article was written almost entirely by an employee (or other person with a conflict of interest) of GFI Solutions, so I am applying my admin's discretion with deleting this article. I have no problems with having this article rewritten by a neutral party as long as the content conforms with Neutral point of view policy. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFI Solutions

Here we go again. Reads like an advert. Created by GFIsolutions (talk · contribs) and all subsequent edits being by an anon who also linked to the list of ERP vendors, from which web links and redlinks are routinely removed. 564 googles of which 137 unique, private company, no turnover, no evidence of impact, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Canonical spam, in other words. Guy 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new user to Wikipedia, I agree that I may have gotten a little overenthusiastic. I would very much like, if possible, to create an article that answers Wikipedia requirements. I will definetely review the links created, and have remove the one you mentionned. However, I do note in the regulations thata company which has been written about in the press is eligible. We have had a number of articles published in the media, including the Gazette, Les affaires, Plant Enginnering, Gestion Logistique, Le Devoir. Admittedly these articles are all Canadian-based, but they are widely read on a local basis. These articles are referenced on our website. We are also a subsidiary of GFI Informatique, which is a public company. I am not sure of the regulations for this situation. Tanja Gehring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TGehring (talk • contribs)
    • TGehring does make a valid point. I do not personally know if these newspapers are popular in Canada, because if they are, then it meets one criterion of WP:CORP. --Nishkid64 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newspapers re-hashing a company's press releases ("we have had a number of articles published") does not count. What counts is journalists writing articles of their own about the company. If you can cite any articles of the latter kind, please do so. Uncle G 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here is a more complete list of articles. Some are in French, given our geography. They are all

independent writings, and widely read in Quebec. In answer to your last question, GFI has not been covered in book or consumer organizations.

cATCHING THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE/ Desjardins hires outside help for smart card transition, from IT BUSINESS CANADA/ La carte magnétique désuète dès 2008, from LES AFFAIRES/GFI Solutions commandite des gazelles, from DIRECTION INFORMATIQUE Signed: TGehring

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I have added links to the articles within the external links section.Signed: TGehring
  • Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that the only substantive edits to this article are by a throwaway account with the company's name and the by company's "Data Provider"? Guy 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Woulda speedied but too slow, so slow speedy delete. Glen 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Nagalingam

I don't think every unsuccesful, insignificant candidate for political office needs their own page. Anyone disagree? Nekohakase 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Gillon

Completely non-notable person, CSD continues to be removed. Brining to AfD so that this article may be reviewed and salted. Wildthing61476 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as repost

Bobgasm

Patent nonsense Rat 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Technology

Does not establish notability per WP:CORP, prod removed without comment. --Alan Au 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please explain what this means--I cannot find this explanation anywhere ("does not establish notability"). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeder1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 September 2006
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd previously deleted this article as CSD A7 and urge careful consideration by Jeder1 as to if you expect that this company really deserves an article in an encyclopedia. (Admins, please note CSD A7 doesn't qualify an article for G4 speedy re-deletion. From my understanding, it has to go through a VfD at least once to be eligable in the future.) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deleted material technically doesn't qualify for any sort of G4 redeletion. However, it can always be reconsidered whether it will qualify under same speedy deletion criterion. (It's an entirely different matter, however, whether the article qualified for A7 in the first place. A7 doesn't clearly spell out that corporations qualify, in my opinion, thus, nonnotable corporations don't qualify for A7. Which is a shame.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this company does deserve an entry in Wikipedia--they have been around for ten years, have many customers, and have been referenced in a number of publications and magazine articles. I don't know what CSD A7 means, or G4, or what a VfD is--I'm just trying to write an entry that's germane and acceptable; this is my first attempt at a Wikipedia entry, and I picked a company that I feel is a leader in its space. Johan Eder 04:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, WP:CSD (various rules of what material is completely unwarranted and will be deleted on sight; A7 is nonnotable people/groups, G4 is deleted content that has been reposted), WP:VfD (old name for Articles for Deletion). Apologies; Articles for Deletion is regrettably a little bit jargon-heavy place. =) You may also want to look at the mysterious WP:G and even WP:WP. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination as non-notable and rather vague. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I don't understand--then why is one of Proxima's competitors allowed to have a listing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Fuel)? Johan Eder 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD debates don't create binding precedents and deletion rules, only "similar cases" that can sometimes be referred to. The people were allowed to make the article, just as anyone was allowed to make this article. All deletion debates are unlinked, and notability of each article is assessed independently of each other. If anyone feels Digital Fuel doesn't fulfill the notability criteria, they're free to nominate that article for deletion too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sources introduced are not about the company, they fail to rise to the WP:CORP level. We get thousands of new articles created a day, that one had never been discussed for deletion. But I see no evidence that it merits inclusion, so I'll get on that. GRBerry 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Webb

Just doesn't seem notable enough? Input from ornithologists welcome, but this person just doesn't strike me as being notable at all. Camillus (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is apparently the first person to record a sighting of the mongolus race of the Lesser Sand Plover in Britain. This is a notable accomplishment. --

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lesser Sand Plover article says its a subspecies - "race" is a weird anthromorphic way of describing the animal which inflates the significance of the difference.... "The Sockeye Salmon is a distinct race from the Pink Salmon". Bwithh 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is an important ornithological scientist working on seabirds in the North Atlantic region - MPF 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF sourced. If not, do what happens to unverified articles. Arbusto 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Unsourced, unverified article which even admits that the main claim to fame hasn't been confirmed yet (I'm not sure where the idea that this guy is an "important ornithological scientist" comes from - he's likely just an enthusiastic birder - bird-watching is very popular as an fun amateur hobby in the UK. And even if the sighting claim is confirmed, I don't think the discovery is of encyclopedic note. Its not the discovery of a new species. Its a claim that a non-UK subspecies has been spotted for maybe the first time in the UK - this doesn't make the person claiming this so notable that we need his life story. Single hit from a search for "Andy Webb AND plover" on the Factiva database - a 2001 interview with Andy about the excitement of birdwatching in the local newspaper Aberdeen Press & Journal but which doesn't mention the claimed plover discovery. Bwithh 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment came here to reply to two comments made above (which I noticed late last night), but Bwithh has beat me to it. Agree - if he's an "important ornithological scientist" then the article should be able to be expanded to include his accomplishments. (Like, there are tons of archaelogists, but until they discover something of note or publish something notable, they don't deserve an article). As it stands at the moment, the only thing notable is that he spotted the bird mentioned above - perhaps a one-liner in the article for the bird mentioning Mr. Webb? I tend to to think that the bird might be notable for venturing out of it's normal area, not the guy who spotted it - and the governing body itself doesn't seem to have verified the claim, anyway. Google doesn't seem to be too fruitful in offering up anything of note, so I guess it's up to Wikibirders to explain why this guy deserves an article. Camillus (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the birding claim isn't very important, but his scientific publications are (e.g. [28], [29]; a google search webb seabird produces a few more) - MPF 01:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Amin Ahsan Islahi. - Bobet 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadabbur

Redundant stub. Already mentioned on Amin Ahsan Islahi. Nekohakase 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. AfD is not a vote, and this article shows no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madness Combat

De-proded. This flash animation series is pretty popular on Newgrounds and other forums, there's no indication that it has received any outside attention that would meet the requirements of WP:WEB. 593,000 Google hits for "Madness Combat" only represents 478 unique hits. Scientizzle 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Arbusto 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but Madness Combat is more than a movie. It's a deep psychgological examination of mans inhumanity to man. Hank isn't a mass murderer because he just decided to become one, he had a genuine interest andplan, on that isn't in any way unusual, and some guy punched him in the face.

    If you delete this page, it will be re-created. I guarantee it.

    -George Zimmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.244.46 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22 10:30:12

  • Delete I've heard of (and seen) the flash animation, but it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Delete and if is IS recreated, salt the earth. Wildthing61476 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -? If this page does get deleted, it will be right back up in a few days... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.253.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22 14:15:19
  • Delete and Protect Considering two threats to recreate the article, lets just salt the earth on this one now --Roninbk t c # 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a notable subject. This was in Wikipedia's Flash Improvement Collaberation (something to that effect, forgot the exact name) where articles on flash topics were chosen from time to time and improved. Does anyone know the exact name of that project, because I can't seem to find it on here. 12.218.144.147 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. --Charlesknight 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I added links to Newgrounds and UGO Player to show it's popularity. It's a very popular and high ranked series on very popular sites. Millions and millions view it, if this isn't notable, I don't know what is. 12.218.144.147 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:WEB states that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I have never heard of UGO player so cannot comment upon it. --Charlesknight 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Type in UGO Player on Google, and a link to Madness Interactive comes up under the first result. Anyway, I read that part about Newgrounds, does that mean that it doesn't matter at all how popular a cartoon is? Look at Xombie. Theres' a whole section of awards from Newgrounds. If I were to do that to the Madness Combat article, would that save it? 12.218.144.147 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article appears to be facing deletion. This is most unfortunate. Madness Combat is an icon, a hero, a pioneer of flash animation. It has forever changed internet culture. It is disappointing that a reliable third party source hasn't come out and said this, but it's true. I understand that Wikipedia's rules are Wikipedia's rules, and that a mere user's plea, an anonymous user at that, cannot prove notability. This is very disappointing, but I accept the fate of this article. It appears to be evident that the enormous popularity of the series and superb effort presented in this article shows notability, but it appears that WP:WEB is far too strict. Most disappointing, but I understand that the rules are the rules and exceptions can't be made, so I need to be mature and step back. I need to display the white flag, to lay down my sword and admit defeat. Mabye in the future a third party source will display itself and this article can be resurrected. But for now, I step back and let what happens happen. 85.214.50.115 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Madness has been an insanely popular webtoon for the past couple of years, often attaining the number one slot as Newground's most popular flash for its newer episodes. It has also spawned a significant number of copycat flashes and there is a wide fan base awaiting new additions to the series. For these reasons, and for the fact that several other Newgrounds icons (such as Pico, Xiao Xiao, and Xombie) all have their own articles, Madness should stay. It's more than notable enough to warrant a place on Wikipedia. In fact, attempts to delete this article seem completely baseless and without reason. To be honest, the only problem I have with it is the POV (which definitely comes off as fanboyish), but even that shouldn't count as an excuse to delete the whole thing. RPH 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RPH. --Simonkoldyk 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RPH. --RoQ 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RPH. --User:Physicbuddha
Comment please note that this is the first edit Physicbuddha has made to Wikipedia. --Simonkoldyk 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think that this is relevant enough to deserve it's own page. It is widely known, even outside of Newgrounds. I've had friends who always thought that Newgrounds was a porn site, but they still knew what Madness Combat was. It is a very well known piece of Internet Media. -MentosC 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt the earth, strike top-level detrimental comments from this discussion: no assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:HOLE applies for me personally, I get the feeling this Flash cartoon receives strong support from the 14-15 male demographic based on its content. The arguments that this is "widely known" are baseless to me, Newgrounds fails WP:WEB (by name even); cite "widely known" and until then, the threats that this page will be recreated after deletion warrant a protect in addition to adding another reason for deletion -- users willing to violate WP policy to make the article persist. -- On an additional note, this AfD is getting out of control from anonymous users. User:85.214.50.115's soapboxing, User:12.218.144.147's replies out of thread, User:168.184.253.101's threat to recreate, and User:209.222.244.46's threat to recreate (at the top level of this discussion, as opposed to nested) need to be moved or struck. They are detrimental to the discussion and hurt the eyes when glancing down the right side for a consensus. No contribution to the AfD is made by these comments. If it doesn't start with bold, can we strike or move it please? --JStalk 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The effort put into this series is commendable. Also each episode has recieved at least 500k+ views. The most recent, Antipathy, has over 1 million views. This should meet WP:WEB. --User:jrpattonUser talk:jrpatton 22:50 EST, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with vast rewrite There is a lot of original research and heavily biased writing in this article. This is way too long for a simple, yet popular flsh series. Many of the comments strewn throughout the article seem more like fan comments made by "Look at me, I'm on wikipedia!" people. Orichalcon 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fun game and I have played it before but it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Whispering(talk/c) 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutt

Minor local phenomenon, if it exists at all MPF 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be on a site like Erowid before it gets onto Wikipedia. This article seems to only contain original research. I checked out the references and couldn't find anything relevant to nutt. Though to be fair, this was as far as I got with the last reference. I couldn't seem to find the article it mentions. Donbert 06:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to verify this. The NEJM reference, which seems to be the only cite, does not appear in their search results for "nutt" and the article title does not appear in Google, unlike a randomly selected article, which has plenty of mentions on the web. Similarly, I can't find anything on Google for the cited author. And searching on Google for "nutt methamphetamine nutmeg" yields nothing related in the first 10 pages of results. There's nothing on Google News for either "nutt nutmeg" or "nutt methamphetamine". I'll apologize profusely if I'm wrong, but this looks like a hoax to me. William Pietri 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It LOOKS like a good article at the outset, but at BEST the artcle should be merged with Methaphetamines. It reads more like a neologism than a new topic. The recipe described is a simple crystal meth recipe, with a few trivial additions (like the nutmeg??? So your meth tastes like Egg Nogg? Is this Christmas Meth?). I checked the only web reference, and it is just a general reference for Methamphetamines. IF the article is notable, the term would show up elsewhere. --Jayron32 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone got access to the citations. Do any of them mention Nutt? If they don't I'll withdraw my keep vote. JASpencer 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 13:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League lore

Even if this were referenced, which it isn't, would an encyclopedia be the place for a collection of what is essentially fan trivia? Surely there must be a sister project or some other home where the verifiability and neutrality issues of uncited fan trivial lists would not be such a problem as they are here? Guy 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Why Make a special page for several Trivial events when we can just add them to team's history section? POV is another issue, as different fans have different views towards an event and its significance. --ShadowJester07 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nice thing about this article is that there are a bunch of trivial events in one article. There are votes to add events to the list. There's a bunch of information in this that link to different pages that are significant to the NFL, specific pages like "The Drive" which isn't even linked in the Denver Broncos page. I'd hate to see this article go, it was a great article to read as a football fan. Thanks for taking the fun out of wikipedia guys.--Aviper2k7 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seitou Ryu

non-notable karate club. Nekohakase 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, we don't keep around copyvios (it's from [30]) in the hope that someone would edit them at some point in the future. If you want an article about him, write one, don't copy an eulogy (or anything else for that matter). - Bobet 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Gibson

Looks like a copy/paste obituary. An unencyclopedic mess. StuffOfInterest 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Lawrence

non-notable.vanity page... Nekohakase 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Castle of Dreams

Article is a non-notable message board that is very small --- 164.107.252.198 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nom started by 164.107.252.198. No reason given. Yomanganitalk 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected back to ethnic stereotype. No need to debate that in AfD. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White imperialism

there's nothing here! Nekohakase 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woshy Wanny

Non-notable band that hasn't even released an album yet. Nekohakase 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Try commons. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower gallery

WP:NOT a collection of photos. Already nominated once (see discussion), but people in the previous discussion seemed unaware of Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Plants/Flowers, so it's kind of redundant. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many of the "keep" votes from the first go-around were conditional on the gallery being annotated. It's been six months and no such thing has occurred. howcheng {chat} 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (fourth nomination)

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phlormunki

The term plhormunki is non-notable. Google shows only 2 hits, the Wikipedia article and the blog-comment that spawned the Wikipedia article. Additionally, the robot (floor monkey) is non-notable: "floor-monkey BEAM" gives 35 hits, "floor-monkey robot" gives 40 hits. Sanguinity 22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Avery Rockefeller

I don't see anything notable about this man besides his famous son. Triviaa 22:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • very weak keep a borderline case indeed but there might be enough sources to compile something non-trivial and the anecdote about Pulitzer is interesting. But I won't cry if this is deleted especially since maintaining POV will be hard since there's a good chance that sources on the guy will be gossipy in nature. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other articles like this.[32] W.A.'s biography paints a historic perspective on Rockefeller's business and biography that some might search for on wikipedia. Arbusto 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge to John D. Rockefeller - in the same way as the external article that Arbustoo highlights above (an article which is primarily about the son, not the father - the father's bio being just used as extra contextual detail). Not notable outside the link with his famous son. In terms of his son's article, a brief explanation of his father's life (and the related media interest) would certainly be worthy details Bwithh 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative Keep I had a rethink on this and now consider my original note a bit hasty - if the media frenzy can be verified, I think that's sufficient justification in itself for a separate article, and okay, there may be some justification for a subarticle to save space in the main John D Rockefeller article. Who says my heart is made of stone??!?!?!! Bwithh 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bwithh--Peta 04:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please discuss any viable merge targets on the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress high command

Contested prod. Term in not uncommon use in the Indian media, but basically a dictionary definition that does not extend knowledge beyond the obvious. I tried to replace it at one point with a redirect to the Congress' apex decision making body - its 'high command'- but that was removed by the pages creator, an anon editor with no other edits. The one line of "information" in it is unreferenced and actually incorrect. Hornplease 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is common use in politics in India .There are 38000 google hits for the term.[33] So article should have place on wikipedia looking at interest . The article does inform what the term indicates. If the Congress high command and congress working committes are the same sure media would not specified Congress high command for some situations and Congress working committee for others.There are different terms . Hornplease says it is actually incorrect without providing reasons why it is incorrect .The reference is provided and no reference is no ground for deletion.Keep and allow time to develop .Shyamsunder 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, please. The above comment is by the article's creator. I am not sure that his claim that the "media would have specified" needs an actual response. However, just in case: the media occasionally uses phrases like "the White House" and "the Hill" to refer to individuals or centres of power. The "Congress high command" is one such phrase which, as I said, is in fairly common use in India. I think the phrase itself cannot have an article much more than a dicdef, and could be speedied under the criterion that an article with content that adds no more information than the title meets WP:CSD. However, it also has a single line of information about the historical period when this title came into force, which is completely unreferenced and quite clearly WP:OR. "Allow time to develop"? Into what? What could possibly be added to an article about a term? Might as well have an article entitled Bombay Remote Control. What would be in that article that would not be in a Bal Thackeray article? Hornplease 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - are you trying to discredit his vote? The articles creator may know more on this phenomenon, which is a more useful term than "working committee"Bakaman Bakatalk 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredible response. The Congress Working Committee is a specific organisation, the highest decision-making body of the Congress Party. A more 'useful term'? And I am not trying to discredit his 'vote', I am pointing out that his statements are not helpful or in line with WP policy. I should also add that the only factual assertion in the article claims that the term "began to be used" when Indira Gandhi "became Prime Minister" in 1971. This is factually untrue. She became PM in 1966. Hornplease 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or merge Like a lot of political parties, there are formal structures and committees, and a "real" core leadership that's smaller. But in most cases the core is an individual leader, like Indira Gandhi, or Tony Blair, so we don't need another separate Wikipedia article about the leadership group. If the Congress high command is collective (and different from the formal committees) then develop this as a separate article, otherwise merge. Mereda 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no content to merge. "High command" is a phrase usually used in the states as a reference to the central committee in Delhi, or euphemistically to the supreme leader if there is one. So any content here will be speculative at best, OR at worst. Hornplease 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a term used in Media.  Doctor Bruno Talk 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete]], {{db-author}} per comment below. Guy 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Squared

Delete. Does not meet criteria for WP:NOTFILM. All of the actors mentioned are redlinked, as well as the production company and the director. No listing of "Love Squared" appears on IMDB. "Love Squared"+"Derek Robertson" shows 2 Ghits. It appears to be a student film. ... discospinster talk 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental revolution

Apart from being a literal copy of this US government page, it doesn't quite cover the title and says little about any form of revolution. But well, that was the title of the EPA page it was lifted from... Perhaps a new page about this smallish NGO, but delete the present content first. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_21&oldid=1081097903"