Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 21 December 23 >

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 keep (according to

Proto's edit summary on the page being AfD'd). --ais523 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC
)

Fighters + Lovers

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

Non-notable company --Gabi S. 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for [1] and [2] - multiple sources make it notable. Trebor 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment articles itself are not sufficient to estabilish notability. There are millions newspapers articles about nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This clearly has. What counts as sufficient to establish notability? A newspaper article provides coverage and verifiable information, so that an article can be written. Trebor 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look here [3], an article about Santa Claus Supermarket - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent... Notice in newspapers does not assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask again: what does? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All you have are two or three newspapers articles. In newspapers there are thousands notices about crimes, elections, singing dogs ... Just buy The Economist and you'll find notices about hundreds of companies - small, big, ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying, but you haven't answered me about what would assert notability. Trebor 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully the second article you've provided, you will see it is rather about
Venstresocialisterne instead of keep or delete. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Merging would be a possibility. But I think there exists enough information for an article on both, neither article would be very short on its own. Trebor 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been able to find just two articles about this "notable" company [4] and [5] which really is not enough to assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by notability? I thought we had the common definition that if something has multiple non-trivial sources, it is notable. What would assert notability? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me, why it fails here Milivoje Bozic. Same situation. You tell me. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can also discuss what exactly is non-trivial published works. Newspapers article is not a non-trivial. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of another article isn't an argument for this one (although I will have a look at that AfD). Non-trivial is a measure of the depth of coverage - a newspaper article can easily be non-trivial, so long as there is enough information on the subject in question. In this case, there is. Trebor 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - There is a case for notability, and the BBC article fits the description of notability for non-trivial published worksin
    WP:N. If more sources can be found, I will consider a stronger position. 206.213.251.31 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Another couple of minutes looking gave [6] and [7]. Trebor 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability shown per BBC, Daily Trojan, and Hispanic, three independent, reliable, nontrivial references. These are in addition to the political websites of leftist organizations, which count les for notability. Edison 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BBC article and the minor references add up to enough points for me under my scoring system. Notability isn't subjective, it just having enough references for verifiability. —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete.

Ken Gelder

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

I would rather wait for someone else to write this page rather than me Ken Gelder

  • Speedy Delete and close. As the article's only author, you may request its speedy deletion. Simply add the following at the top of the article: {{
    db-author}}. It will be deleted whenever an admin gets around to it. Fan-1967 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.































































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

The result was No consensus/dismissed per rewrite with references, no prejudice against re-nomination on other concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 02:04Z

Bernard Eastlund

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

The article reads like a CV, not notable, no references and no citations. Meno25 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - the referencing has certainly been improved here, and despite the pattern below it would probably be unfair to delete this article. A no-consensus or relisting to consider with new evidence may be appropriate. Deizio talk 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control Conspiracy Series) by Jerry E. Smith, Published by Adventures Unlimited Press, August 1998, Page 20.
2. Chemtrails Confirmed by William Thomas Published by Bridger House Publishers, August 2004, Aug 2004, Page 143.
3. Conspiranoia!: The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories by Devon Jackson, Published by Plume Publishers, Jan 1, 2000, Page 330.
4. The Universal Seduction Vol. 3: Piercing the Veils of Deception - Volume 3 by Angelico Tapestra--The Collective, Published by BookSurge Publishing, April 7, 2004, Page 33.
5. Mind Control, World Control by Jim Keith, Published by Adventures Unlimited Press, Feb 1998, Page 247.
6. Final Reckoning by Ward Ciappetta, Published by Xulon Press, Jun 17, 2005, Page 175.
7. An End to Global Warming by L.O. Williams, Published by Pergamon Press, August 1, 2002, Page 58.
8. Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source by Joan Lisa Bromberg Published by MIT Press, Sep 29, 1982, Index.
In addition, Bernard Eastlund is one of the patent holders (US Patent #4,686,605) that led to the development of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
HAARP which has been sensationalized in many books as a weapon with the potential to destroy the world by creating a death ray [9]
and altering weather patterns.
Therefore, Bernard Eastlund is without a doubt a very notable person both in the popular press and as an inventor. --Jamira 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Though not as strong as Jamira. only two of those books are non-vanity press, and in both of them he is a mention on a single page, or just in an index. But there are other possible sources all around. Send back for sourcing. It is sourceable. Going back to Akihabara, the patent and the article are the necessary two sources to keep the article , though more should be done. This time, I am not offering to do it. Jamira? DGG 05:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My understanding of "subject of a book" would be that the majority of the book was about him, not an arbitrary mention on a page here and there. One Night In Hackney 07:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:One Night In Hackney, thank you for your comment. This is where the term non-triviality comes into use. According to the primary notability criterion which explains the depth of content needed in the published work, the subject (Bernard Eklund, in this case)needs to be more than "mere directory entry information" and the publication needs to directly address the subject. That is all it requires. "A page here and there," if non-trivial, is all that is needed. It does not require that the majority of the published work be about the subject, only that it is non-trivial and more than a "directory entry" such as a list. In any case, I only used these books as an example of how widespread references to Bernard Eklund are in published books found at Amazon.com.
In addition to books at Amazon.com, searching Google [10] yields an incredible number of hits (about 9,280). This is because Bernard Eastlund is so notable in the popular press. As explained above, many authors are writing about the potential of
HAARP as a weapon. I am not saying they are right, only that these publications exist, thereby satisfying the primary notability criterion
. For example --
Dan Eden published an article about Bernard Eastlund [11] and states, "Eventually everyone will know about Bernard Eastlund and his work. It will someday be taught in schools. His technology will impact every living thing. But this will have to wait for the military, who own his valuable patents, to release Eastlund's work for humane applications."
Another published article sensationalizing Bernard Eastlund's inventions [12] states, "Hoping to cash in on climate change, Eastlund now says that his company ESEC recently signed a contract with the European Space Agency to review the weather modification potential of the HAARP facility in Alaska. Eastlund is also looking to abort tornadoes using HAARP to turn off these whirling dervishes before wind speeds reach destructive force."
In addition, the Google search yields another article about Bernard Eastlund and the "HAARP Geophysical Weapon" [13] stating, "American scientist Bernard Eastlund is considered to be the godfather of this program. He received the patent for the method and for the device to measure the layers of the Earth atmosphere, the ionosphere and/or the magnetosphere."
My point is that there are literally hundreds of published reports like these about Bernard Eastlund. You only need "multiple non-trivial published reports" (i.e. more than one) to satisfy the primary notability criterion. I am not saying that Bernard Eastlund is a good scientist or even a famous one, only that he is notable by the definition of the Wikipedia primary notability criterion and as such should be included in Wikipedia. --Jamira 19:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly a stickler for a person to be the main subject of serious coverage in serious sources. I'm still not convinced about our subject here, but in any case the list of books used as references does not provide much context on what coverage he received in those sources. Anybody so widely covered in these times must surely have been the focus of news reports and other repectable coverage which can be accessed on the internet? I got 391 unique google hits which is a fair number but not really "incredible". [14] Also, the Eden report mentioned above is not on a source which strikes me as "reliable" for establishing notability. Deizio talk 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those books do not seem to meet the primary notability criterion,[15] which states "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject, and is further clarified with a footnote [16] which states Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial. So I'm really struggling to understand your interpretation of the guideline here, perhaps you can expand? One Night In Hackney 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:One Night In Hackney, thank you for your comment. To answer your question, the guidelines on non-triviality seem quite clear. If a subject is mentioned merely as part of a list or a directory reference (e.g. a phone book directory), it is trivial. If there is some discussion of the subject (more than it just being listed) it is non-trivial. But I think you will agree that it is not necessary for several books to be written about someone before they are considered notable. Please note that being notable is not the same thing as being famous. One can be notable without being famous. For more discussion on the primary notability criterion, it is best to go directly to the source which is User:Uncle_G. I hope this explains the term non-triviality as used for WP notability. Thanks again for your comment. --Jamira 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamira, I see a lot of your interpretation of the notability / published coverage guidelines, but your tone is that of someone patiently explaining absolute facts to a questioning child. There is no accepted bar for triviality (that's why we have so many of these fun debates down at AfD), hence your assertion that one exists is wrong - "Is the bar low for establishing non-triviality and notability? Yes." Really? I missed that meeting. Given the evidence presented thus far, I think the bar is higher than Mr. Eastlund, and others appear to agree. I notice you have a total of 17 edits, with more than half of them related to Mr. Eastlund, and can't help but wonder if you perhaps lack experience in deletion and policy matters? Deizio talk 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment one Rules of the game: whoever descends to personalities first loses. Obviously that isn't the std WP practice, but it is certainly how I look at the comments here in judging the quality--not just quantity--of support. We are not here to discuss each others' merits, but those of the article.
  • comment two When opinion about notability is this much divided, it's notable.DGG 03:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If any offence is taken from my comments then I apologize as that was not my intention. I would dispute that opinion is particularly divided here, the head count certainly leans in a clear direction. Deizio talk 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even user DGG stated "only two of those books are non-vanity press, and in both of them he is a mention on a single page, or just in an index", which in my opinion can only be classed as trivial mentions. I'm not saying a person needs to have several books written about them to be notable, but a chapter or two might be a good starting point. One Night In Hackney 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further proof of Bernard Eastlund's notability can be obtained by searching Google News [17]. Bernard Eastlund has been the subject of news articles in the Washington Post [18], USA Today [19], Anchorage Daily News [20], Wired Magazine [21], Current Science, Space News, The Advocate, Nevada State Journal, Fusion Power Report, The Argus (California Newspaper), Telepolis (German Newspaper) [22], and Environmental Magazine. Additionally, he was interviewed by National Public Radio (NPR) [23] on their Talk of the Nation program about his research. Without a doubt, these articles establish his notability as defined in the primary notability criterion.

Please note that as of 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) the article on Bernard Eastlund has been completely rewritten and references incorporated in order to validate his notability. --Jamira 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with the USAToday and Wired articles in particular, would like to see all references better formatted into the article. Deizio talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see "been the subject of" is still being mis-interpreted, also some of the references provided are not free to view. If the references were properly incorporated into the article so it could be verified I'd possibly go for a "Week keep", but not at this moment in time. One Night In Hackney 19:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sounds like he's notable for the Fusion Torch invention alone, whatever that is -- whatever HAARP turns out to be. If one could expand on why he received the special award for the Fusion Torch, "notability" would be assured, I think, even in the eyes of some of the skeptics.
    Shawn in Montreal 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; but there appears to be little need to delete, as if a full article isn't possible then it can just be a redirect to

Three phase traffic theory (whose notability isn't questioned here). Which is left up to the normal workings of discussion and consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Boris Kerner

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

What is this article exactly?!! Not notable, no references, no citations, does not pass

WP:STUB, reads like a CV and much more! Meno25 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Please keep. Notable enough, as trialsanderrors has demonstrated. Should be expanded, of course, but just about any article starts out as a stub. OinkOink 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:48Z

Comedy Tumbleweed Awards

Comedy Tumbleweed Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable website awards. ArtVandelay13 00:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • No to deletion - the website is very well known in UK comedy circles and the awards, while sometimes too ranting for my tastes, offer an important counterpoint to both Chortle and the 'real' UK comedy awards. as has been mentioned, they *have* received some press attention, and the precedent has been set by other comedy websites having their awards included. i feel it's always going to be a contentious point on wikipedia because most UK comedy entries are seemingly 99% maintained by big fans of the show/comedian in question (i myself have had to battle long and hard to prevent, for example, the inclusion of an award on the Mighty Boosh page that was invented by their own management, or a marcus brigstocke 'joke' that he stole from someone else - his denial was being quoted as fact on wiki!)
  • Not only is it notable (as it has had some UK press attention) but it's at least as notable as websites such as Chortle [24] whose comedy awards have been included in the entries on comedians such as Josie Long [25].
  • I'd fully support the deletion of this entry so long as Chortle's entry and all mentions of their comedy awards also get deleted.--Mr. Analytical 00:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this article lacks any independent sources substantiating any claims to notability. Nick Graves 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to deletion - It is a notable website that has had press attention [26] - bingo99 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to deletion - The Chortle Website lacks endorsements. In fact, there isn't even an entry for the Chortle awards, but they're still included on different entries. The Tumblies have received mainstream media attention, as has its website of origin (including featuring on a recent TV programme).--Mr. Analytical 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on what you mean on this? They quite definitely 'exist', and have their own website.
  • Furthermore, it's highly unusual three people can come up with the same synonym to "keep", consecutively... MER-C 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let alone the same extremely unusual synonym. --Charlene 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above accusation of all of the defences being mounted by the same person is baseless, childish and well below the usual standard of debate that Wikipedia is noted for. Shame on you.
    • Comment: So you have nothing to hide if someone decides to
      check then? --Kinu t/c 07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I don't know if the above is ribbing, but a cursory look at their user pages does not suggest anything underhanded.--Dmz5 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an accusation, it's an observation. I implied it's a possibility, nothing more. MER-C 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's highly unlikely thay they are the same person, more likely simply not knwing that Keep is the standard term and copying the person above. ArtVandelay13 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fairness the script of this years "awards" on the website is quality, very funny. Very Brit-centric so don't bother if you don't watch a lot of Channel 4. Still nn tho. Deizio talk 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:48Z

Lili Sahakyan

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

No independent sources on this person, only notable within the university. Only 217 ghits. Fails WP:BIO.

Sr13 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hyland

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

Captain of college hurling team. Does not seem to me to meet

WP:BIO, but vigorously contested on talk page, so moved here. NawlinWiki 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't rewrite it but I purged it of the more egregious POV stuff. Perhaps it will be clearer now if there is really an article in there.--Dmz5 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is why I didn't want to !vote, I don't know if hurling is a big deal in Ireland, if Trinity College is a notable team, etc etc.--Dmz5 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage presented. Passing mentions do not suffice, and promoting a particular cause certainly does not. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable group. Despite cleanup this article still reads reads like a mixture of soapbox and advertising. Akihabara 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears both the added references are long, extensive articles about the issue, but with only very brief mentions of this group, buried deep in the articles. Fan-1967 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per 2 independent references, which is about 2 more than 70% of the Wikipedia articles. Previous comment confirm the organization is discussed in the articles. They do not have to be the primary subject. Edison 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the criterion per Wikipedia:Notability is "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (emphasis added). Two brief mentions would not seem to satisfy that. Fan-1967 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's not be WP:N nazis about this, this seems to be adequately referenced. -Toptomcat 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The organisation exists, and its purpose makes it notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There still is alot in the way of sources, and the article seems to be soapboxy. Generally, a unique and noble purpose does not make one notable.-- danntm T C 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Just H 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A noble organization working for a noble cause. Maddy626 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was tempted to go through and put {{fact}} and {{pov}} tags throughout the entire thing. Being "noble" doesn't mean notareity.
    SkierRMH 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Not notable Fabhcún 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toptomcat. If it's a bona fide public advocacy group, in the news, and it seems to be, it merits inclusion.
    Shawn in Montreal 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result of the debate was keep. Notability appears to be established, and there is no consensus for deletion. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi purpose chemical

Multi purpose chemical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Falls under the bar of notability in my book. One demo cd, one EP and support slots with bigger bands don't quite cut it. Might be worth an article after the album comes out and they've toured in their own right on a major basis, for now Delete

exolon 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biff fines

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

This is a non-notable person. Both this article and its companion article,

conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:50Z

Sam Leatherwood

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

This is a non-notable person. Both this article and its companion article,

conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It appears that 101X is a local radio station [27] which I assume had a local contest. This still wouldn't work as it isn't a well-known award simply a local thing. But, well done Sam Leatherwood nonetheless. IrishGuy talk 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under CSD G11 by

GRBerry 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

EVE srl

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

Fails

WP:CORP. Spammy. Contested prod. MER-C 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Redirect to Mythology_of_Lost#The_Monster. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:52Z

Black Smoke Monster (Lost)

Black Smoke Monster (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Redundant of better-written

Wikipedical 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete and someone please close this discussion, its beginning to ooze black smoke...
    SkierRMH,22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:53Z

Thejas Online

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

Originally speedy requested as G11 [28], tagged as wikify and importance [29], with tags later being removed [30]. I can't personally verify whether or not it will meet

WP:NOTE, but I feel this might not be the case. Sigma 7 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: Thejas is now tagged for proposed speedy deletion, for the same reason as this article. It was originally requested for speedy delete as well, and that tag was removed improperly. --Sigma 7 22:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
    top 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Merge with Thejas. Delta Tango • Talk 02:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Delta Tango • Talk 08:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per RockMFR.

T|C) 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Thejas is not nominated. You'll have to nominate it first (in a separate discussion). --- RockMFR 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thejas is now prodded speedied, with the prod reason linking to this discussion. --Sigma 7 22:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was spam.--

T 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdoor Family

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

Article is an advertisement for a shop. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources found searching via google. Article creator appears to be the shop owner. PROD removed without comment. Whpq 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth of Santa

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

Seems to be original research, "proving" that Santa doesn't exist. It's also very POV, considering how we all know SANTA IS REAL. --Explodicle 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was categorized at Category:FieldTurf installations. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:54Z

List of FieldTurf installations

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

Categorize. Delete. This article was

WP:NOT) Lovelac7 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:56Z

Mystery Bus and Mystery Taxi

Mystery Bus and Mystery Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

per WP:NEO, WP:WINAD Jmax- 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, and give

User:SkierRMH an ABD. —Quarl (talk
) 2006-12-27 01:58Z

List of words considered to be psychobabble

List of words considered to be psychobabble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An example of listcruft that fails

Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Do I get a PhD in Psychology for the title of my new dissertation topic? :)
SkierRMH 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete no reliable third-party sources fails notability guidelines, WP:COI, "Deletion Request from Subject" was counted as a delete also. Dakota 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director)

J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Essentially this is a vanity article. Much of the directorial/movie information is not backed up by IMDB. What's left that's provable is that he's just a still photographer and camera operator. Not exactly notable for an encyclopedia article.

Talk • Work 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to note that the IMDB page on this person has extensive credits listed on major film productions. Do you not feel that the photography for X-Men: Last Stand or Poseidon is enough to warrant leaving this person on this site? I believe urther research into the motivations that this articles was recommended for deletion would find that it is based on a personal dispute rather than on professional integrity. Mr. Steve Magruder aka steveietheman erroneously brought attention to himself in 2004 when he conducted an interview citing Mr. O'Daugherty former business partner as a conclusive candidate for The Piano Man in Great Britain. Mr. O'Daugherty corrected the information and raised question concerning the manner which Mr. Magruder handled the public disclosures on WikiNews. The created a great deal of embarrassment for both Mr. O'Daugherty and Mr. Betts. Although Mr. Gorman publicly apologized for posting erroneous material, Mr. Magruder never once offered any public apology. Since Mr. Magruder was Mr. O'Daugherty's former domestiv partner (registered in California) their break up wasn't on the best of terms. Now suddenly, any article that relates to Mr. O'Daugherty's professional work and career is coming under attack by Mr. Magruder. I think it's fair that based on the fact that the article was suggested for deletion by Mr. Magruder, this is simply a retalitory act on his part for being publicly corrected in 2004, and out or personal issues stemming from their 2004 breakup. I would advise reconsidering deletion at this time to avoid possible Wikipedia becoming caught up in what is obviously a personal domestic dispute, otherwise it may be concluded that Wikipedia isn't as objective as it promotes itself being. There could be legal ramifications if this matter isn't handled in the most appropriate manner.

The entire interview from stevietheman regarding the Piano Man can be found under the discussion for article "Piano Man" is not British actor, search down to three leads which supports Mr. Magruder's unscrupulous motivations. --Ilsonlakosky 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Piano Man" is not British actor, search down to three leads does seem to have been written solely using Magruder as a source (Magruder is identified as Stevietheman in that article), and did result in a retraction. Whether or not this had anything to do with O'Daugherty is unknown. In any case, the nom made arguments based on Wikipedia policies and O'Daugherty does not seem notable according to guidelines. Finally, it is absolutely forbidden to
make legal threats regarding an editor's contributions, as you have. I don't see justification for pulling the nom even if it was done for personal reasons if the article fails basic notability tests. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm unclear why this is arousing so much emotional rhetoric; anyone would think that it was about Stormfront or Intelligent Design. Nor am I clear what standard of notability this entry is being held to, as none of the "voters" have explained their "votes" beyond throwing slogans around. This is supposed to be a discussion of an article, not a string of votes under the slogan "it's vanispamcruftadvertising".
So far as I can tell from IMDb, and the facts in the article which no-one here has disputed, O'Daugherty meets the
WP:BIO crterion: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (I'd vote against Symbiosis System of Acting, though.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but how does this record constitution a "widely recognized contribution":
  • two uncredited acting roles
  • three gigs as production assistant (which implies anything from gofer to typist to set security)
  • three gigs as still photographer
  • one gig as a camera operator
He's received no awards for any of these accomplishments. Who has widely recognized them? Also, IMDB is not an "enduring historical record". There might be notability in being a script doctor on a "blockbuster film" but there are no sources for this claim.--Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the forum for me to respond to all the matters (some true, some untrue) expressed by
Talk • Work 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Another nugget for consideration: The article currently says "O'Daugherty won recognition with his documentary, New Madrid: Tears of a Princess". When entered into Google, Yahoo and Live.com searches, no independent verification of this film can be found. This is but a small part of what led me to nominate this as essentially a vanity piece.
Talk • Work 15:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Based on stevietheman's arguments, I still disagree, however, I will delete the O'Daugherty article myself, since I did contribute it. Although on the "Other Works" page of the IMDB page in question, there are several listings which outline his accomplishments. Still, there is a double standard being used for Symbiosis System. If that article is deleted, then Wikipedia would have to delete the entire catagory of Acting Methods, since Symbiosis is an established acting method. Recommendation to clean it up might be taken as more reasonable, but not deletion. The article does outline and detail an acting method that isn't a copy from other methods and is original. How do you gage the criteria for adding or deleting an "acting method?"

It stands to reason that stevietheman's credibility in this matter would come into question since it's been cited that serious errors have been made within the Wikinews, which should be held to higher standards of reporting. I still believe this to be an abuse of position, however that will be resolved with the deletion.

However, if Symbiosis System is deleted, then every article under Acting Methods should be scrutinized and deleted under the same grounds. --Ilsonlakosky 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search with "Symbiosis System of Acting" -wikipedia and nothing turned up. Please read
Talk • Work 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Whatever happened on Wikinews last year (not 2004), it has no bearing on this process. How we gauge inclusion of an "acting method" or any other article is the same -- using
reliable sourcing. A method's creator is a [[WP:PS|primary source and not sufficient to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps you should visit www.jaykofilms.com and review the Acting 101 page that is online. There is an expansive discussion of Symbiosis including the history etc. However, a third party resource... would inclusion in IMDB not serve to indicate that O'Daugherty is a notable person considering that the criteria for inclusion on IMDB is recognizable credentials? IMDB doesn't just post information on their website without a long process of verification, etc? They also have very strict guidelines on what is acceptable, even on their "Other Works" pages. --Ilsonlakosky 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think we're going to reconsider IMDB just to give this vanity bio a pass? Come on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Legal Threats": The statement made was not a direct threat of legal action. It was stating a fact. Were I in O'Daugherty's shoes, I am sure that I'd be exploring my options, as anyone would, especially considering prior abuse and misinformation posted on WikiNews by Magruder that did in fact cause a great deal of embarrassment for O'Daugherty organization. But a "threat of legal action" would be if I stated "I will look into legal option if this isn't handled appropriately". I do believe the exact wording of my previous statement would fail to pass the legal definition of a "legal threat". --Ilsonlakosky 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be dragged into a semantics discussion. If you make another threat, you'll be blocked. I'm placing a warning on your user page so that administrators know you have been warned. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe this dispute needs to be mediated by experts who understand IMDB, the film industry, acting, acting methods, acting schools, etc. It's becoming obvious that few in this dispute have any real knowledge of the business and what establishes a "notable" career. This has become a pissing contest with no end in site. I request that this matter be decided by a panel with expertise in this particular field. I'm sure that isn't an unreasonable request. Mediation by knowlegable parties would be the ONLY acceptable resolution to this dispute. Additionally, since pursuant to Dhartung argument in my Talk, I must also request that stevietheman's coments and participation in this discussion be striken as he is O'Daugherty former domestic partner (as previously raised) and therefore by the definition Dhartung has provided me, would be a conflict of interest. --Ilsonlakosky 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "pissing match" or a "dispute". This is a standard discussion of notability, which by Wikipedia procedures may be initiated by any editor. The result is based on the consensus opinion of all editors, any of whom may participate. If you feel that procedurs have not been properly followed, and the article is deleted, you may initiate a
deletion review which will determine whether there was any flaw in the process. The result of a DRV is usually a procedural AFD, leading to another discussion like this one.--Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

January 19, 2003 Courier-Journal Article ID: lou2003012007205388: Director hopes film lures bit of Hollywood to Louisville

Included in that article are references to my work on several major films, and supports my status as a professional and NOTABLE filmmaker. The article written by Nancy Rodriguez was supported by interviews and research by the journalist.

Contrary to stevietheman and Dhartung's claims, I have read the article and the definition of "Notability" as provided by Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article is supported the article mentioned above as my reputation as a filmmaker within the Louisville businss community was sufficient to provide me support during my productions, including from major business leaders based entirely on my name recognition. By the very definition of "Notability" whether on a local, national or international level, my contributions to the film communities in Louisville, Florida, London, Los Angeles, NYC have provided me respect based on name recognition within the communities. International recognition will come as a result of the upcoming release of Midnight Snow. However, I have become aware that there is an effort to promote regional and locally related articles. If nothing else, the article would qualify for a Louisville based circulation based on local notability resulting from the article in the Louisville Courier-Journal (which is an internationally recognized publication).

Regarding Symbiosis System of Acting, this is an "Acting Method" no different than any method taught to actors, such as the Meisner Method. Since I have already qualified by argument for inclusion of this article, Symbiosis System of Acting would qualify by default, just as the articles relatd to Meisner's techniques. However, the category is called "Acting Methods". An acting method by itself doesn't become notable. It is notable through a grassroots effort through teaching. 183 students of acting have been taught this method since 2004. That isn't necessarily a small number considering that it was only developed into a formatted program during the past decade. That doesn't make it any less important than Meisner or Strausberg which has been taught for several decades with an established following. But the definition of Acting Method would qualify Sysbiosis System's inclusion as an article about Acting Methods because it is exactly that... an Acting Method. Exclusion of more contemporary techniques such as Symbiosis System, Dawn Wells Film Acting Boot Camp or Bob Fraser's "You Must Act" programs would make the category on Wikipedia's Acting Methods incomplete since most of the Meisner, Stanislavsky and Strausberg techniques are relevent to stage acting only and are mostly outdated. There are too many qualifying techniques being used today in film acting that under the guidelines you are addressing would be disqualified and would thereby render Wikipedia as an out-dated resource.

Qualification of an article is not left for interpretation by Editors. However, I do feel that the Editors, who are not attorneys, should consider that by interpreting written policy, they are setting a precedence that would have to be followed very carefully on all future articles. As courts are careful about "interpretating" law, Editors and Administrators need to be careful about interpreting policy, otherwise Wikipedia could quickly become an outdated and unreliable source of information based on unnecessary exclusion of so many relevent articles.

Vanispamcruftisement

Vanispamcruftisement (IPA: /væ.nə.spæm.kɹəf.ʼtaɪz.mənt/; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau term comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. The term was coined by Freakofnurture to describe an article nominated for deletion which exhibited all the above properties, being an article apparently created by the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom.

Contrary to steveietheman or Dhartung's claims, neither article qualifies under the above definition. The J. Kristian O'Daugherty article was written by Ilson Lakosky about a film director. There are no services... no company... no advrtisements anywhere, including on my website at www.jaykofilms.com. What any reader is directed to through external links, are pages discussing the film industry, still photography, an extensive resource on acting under the Symbiosis System of Acting, and ten galleries of original, and obviously professional quality photographic work. Everything that any serious artist's website might contain. The reference to JayKO would be no different than referencing Askew in an article about Kevin Smith. They go hand in hand.

The Symbiosis System article doesn't promote any service which payment is expected. In fact, I've noticed that Ilson provided most of the structure of the system in the article, although somewhat incomplete. All information provided to the public about Symbiosis System of Acting allows the reader to apply the system without having to attend classes or purchase any services, books or materials. In otherwords... Free Use of the acting system by the reader without obligation.

As to my position on the threats of Legal Action, I do find Ilson's remarks somewhat inappropriate. Any legal action would have to be made by me alone and that is not my objective. I'd prefer this matter be resolved without further disruption and in a professional and respectful manner. If it cannot be resolved through these debates, then Wikipedia's adminstrators were wise enough to provide Dispute Resolution when conflicts arise. Hopefully we can all come to a fair agreement on how this should be handled without having to engage futher procedures.

I will stand by my opinion that the Editors need to apply reasonable standards when reviewing articles and submitting them for deletion. What may be appropriate for one category may not be for another. You should consider each topic carefully and apply standards that relate directly to the subject matter being adressed in the article.

God bless and Happy Holidays to everyone this season. --Jkris97 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If all of this turnes out to be true. But if all that can be said for sure is that he is a camera photagrapher, then Delete -- Dasnedius 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be for me to directly cooperate with one of the editors to rewrite the articles to comply with the standards being adressed here. Perhaps the Symbiosis System of Acting article could be rewritten with a focus on contemporary film acting methods covering many of the programs currently available. Just a suggestion... --Jkris97 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jkris97 (assuming you are the subject of the article), while your cooperation would be appreciated if the article is kept, keeping our
      WP:AUTO
      policies in mind, the question being discussed here is whether your articles meet our notability standards. If you could supply reliable third-party sources which discuss your film contributions or the "Symbiosis System", that would help us make a decision. Your own defense of your personal view of your own notability is not sufficient, no matter how hard you've worked or how proud you are of those accomplishments. Many people do good work without becoming notable by our guidelines.
    • Nevertheless, we need objective sources, not claims. The Courier-Journal article (registration only) seems to be primarily about the featurette Where the River Ends, which does not have an IMDB entry. (available text: "A murder. A dream. A sense of deja vu. And the bobbing and weaving of a man trying to alter his destiny. It was all captured on film in Louisville last week, as ArtzMo Productions LLC did its first short feature film, Where the River Ends. Yesterday, cast and crew hustled around Primizie Pizza Pasta & Philly Steaks at Theater Square, preparing to") Googling "where.the.river.ends louisville" brings up only your site and somebody's guestbook. There is no "daugherty" or "o'daugherty" anywhere on the Kentucky Film Office website. I'm going the extra mile here and I'm just not finding anything significant that has been written about you or the productions you say you've been involved with, which suggests they are independent efforts that have not achieved notability.

I'm not sure if the Kentucky Film Office would be a reliable source either, since according to information on the internet O'Daugherty lives and works in Burbank and West Hollywood. --Ilsonlakosky 20:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Kentucky Film Office does not provide specific information about productions past. Since WTRE was produced in January 2003, the KFO would have no interest in maintaining information on that. The most reliable source of information available to the public for the film industry would be the IMDB. The public, including yourself would not be privy to many of the databases resources that a working professional would be. However, my IMDB page, although not complete in its updating yet, provides clear support that my work isn't simply on a "local" level. The work I've accomplished can be seen by typing in ANY of the titles listed on my IMDB page. As to the documentaries etc, IMDB includes the "Other Works" page where projects that either didn't get aired/released (such as Pilot Episodes) or stage work can be added. Their criteria for submission is very strict (more so than Wikipedia) and can take weeks, months, sometimes years before they can verify and add those credits. Anyone with extensive knowledge of or who works in the film industry would understand this. So the most reliable source that Editors could use would be the IMDB for film related articles. This would be more reliable than Google or Yahoo, since I've done searches myself on my name, and depending on how I spell it, or type it, will come back with different results. But typing my name in IMDB comes back immediately with a one page result. --Jkris97 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to come to this decision, but I personally prefer not to have Symbiosis System of Acting nor my name associated with these discussions further. I appreciate that Ilson Lakosky considered me accomplished enough to draft an article documenting my film work and my development of the Symbiosis System of Acting. However, based on these discussions, I am request that all traces of my name and my acting program be immediately removed from Wikipedia, including all discussions in these forums. I will also expand that to include future articles that may include my name or my work, even if it passes Dhartung and Stevietheman's definition of "Notable".

At this time, I am finding ABC, CNN and MSNBC's questions concerning the value of Wikipedia and WikiNews more accurate than I prefer based on two very unpleasant experiences I've had, both centered around the decision on one of this organization's editors. Therefore, I ask that my request be immediately implemented without delay. --Jkris97 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am sorry you have found this unpleasant. There was never any such intent, of course. As a matter of policy it is impossible to erase your
      articles for deletion debate is permanently archived for maintenance purposes. It is also impossible for us to honor your request that you never appear in the encyclopedia, for instance, in any future film credits that may be included in articles, or to guarantee that no article will ever appear in the future. Nor do we have a process for deleting articles at a subject's request, otherwise it might be impossible to write articles about notorious or unpopular public figures. I am certain that the closing administrator will count your request appropriately as a delete vote. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete per nom and subject's request. Montco 02:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:02Z

KPLC TV Tower Fenton

KPLC TV Tower Fenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viacom Communications Tower Duette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Punta Gorda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Second Generation of Iowa Tower Van Horne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waterman Broadcasting Tower Punta Gorda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WBBH TV Tower Tuckers Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telemundo Tower San Antonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fort Myers Broadcasting Tower Punta Gorda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WPBF Tower Martin County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Channel 34 TV Tower Palm City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nebraska Education Tower Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Texas Tall Tower Elmendorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As cleanup following

WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 03:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete all except WIS TV Tower. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:04Z

Raycom America Tower Huntsville

Richland Towers Tower Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Morris Tower Perkston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pacific and Southern Tower Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Capstar Radio Tower Mooresville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mississippi Authority for Educational TV Tower Mchenry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malrite Communications Tower Green Acres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ime Media Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raycom America Tower Huntsville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Outlet Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WIS TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As cleanup following

WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Redirect to

List of recurring characters in The O.C.. —Quarl (talk
) 2006-12-27 02:07Z

Frank Atwood

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

Minor character that's only appeared in one episode of

Danny Lilithborne 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Charlotte Morgan and Jess Sathers, just to name a few, have their own page, yet they didn't appear in many episodes and didn't have much, if any, of an impact on the show. I say we give the Frank Atwood page some more time before we go ahead a just delete it, especially when there are other O.C. characters out there that did just as much as he did, maybe even less, and they still have a page. RYANonWIKIPEDIA 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:11Z

Serena - TeamTrack

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

Spammy article about some

non-notable software. Google throws up some reprinted press releases. Contested prod. MER-C 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:12Z

Sliemm Masloysex

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

Looks like nonsense, unencyclopedic at best. Not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegX (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:12Z

Quaker's Hill underground music movement

Quaker's Hill underground music movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Looks like nonsense, unencyclopedic at best. Not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegX (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; as far as alternatives go, merging appears to have been covered and categorising lists that have been created from listified categories seems like an exercise in futility. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 300 passing touchdown club

List of 300 passing touchdown club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

PROD was contested (probably properly, insofar as the reason I provided was likely not the most persuasive). This was listified in view of a

redirect
.

For the same reasons, I am nominating:

each of which was listified in view of the CfD and similarly comprises very, very little. Joe 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge into

Bill O'Reilly (commentator). For now, I'm going to make it a redirect to there; the current contents will still be visible in the history, so anybody who wants to merge material can find it there. If, at some future time, the term gains more widespread use, especially in the mainstream press, it may be worthy of its own article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Secular_progressives

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

The page refers to an invective neologism created and used by only one author. While people can consider themselves secular and progressive, there are no political or social organizations or commentators that use the term "secular progressive" to refer to themselves. As such, this term is similar to femi-nazi, in that the only current use and discussion of it is from a biased source.

Until such time as a political or social origination or commentator takes up this label or, like the term femi-nazi, it becomes widespread enough that commentators other than Bill O'Riley can use it, I suggest this term cannot meet Wikipedia's standards. Maria Caliban 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not to mention that it's horribly POV without any real response included from the other side, the use of direct quotations tells me that this probably wasn't meant as an attack at all by the author, but including only one side of a definition tends to carry a strong negative connotation. That, and it's a neologism used by one author (apparently), until it's reported on in it's own right, it's just not notable. Wintermut3 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike the current spirited debate about
    Santorum (sexual slang), this one doesn't really have much to talk about - no uses at all beyond O'Reilly.--Dmz5 10:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Keep, but cite cultural/political effect Quick google search of the exact phrase has ~82,000 hit, most of them from political blogs, but some from verifiable news agencies. The problem with the argument of "neoligism" in this case is that a) it passes notability and b) the two words are both weighted ones in politics so will be put together at least occasionally, whether by Bill O'Reilly or not. In this case, as much as it personally pains me, O'Reilly's use of the term has been a part of the political discourse of the last several years. I'd like this article cleaned up, given minimal POV, and focus on the effect of the term on the political culture than on strict "definition", but it IS a term currently in play and I don't feel we can hide our heads in the sand about it. Regarding the two previous delete arguments that refer to POV: Remember that NPOV is NOT an argument for deletion in AfD debates, since POV issues should be taken care of by editing an article, not deleting it. -Markeer 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still vote for delete, but in the meantime I will be editing the article using these 82,000 hits to provide the opposing POV. -- Cat Whisperer 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some opposing POV to the article, but seeing how most of the 82,00 hits were blogs, that's where the opposing POV came from. I've also taken a look at the main
Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article, which already mentions Secular Progressives, and which already details O'Reilly's political views, and I don't see what this new article adds to the subject. -- Cat Whisperer 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep As the primary author of this article, I am disappointed with the arguments in favor of its deletion. I support the existence of this article NOT because I wrote it, but for two, very sound reasons:
1. As stated above, the perceived POV of the article does not add to its "deletability." The term "secular-progressive" highlights a viewpoint of a particular political group: of course the article will be one-sided.
In fact, if we were to extend the arguments presented on this page, ANY article on Wikipedia could be deleted just for having a point of view! What kind of intellectual climate does this create?
2. The Wikipedia guidelines on neologisms state that such articles "should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability." This article uses no original research, and has been verified to an extensive degree. Having a CBS news article talk specifically about the term surely indicates that this is not a "school-child" phrase.
Remember, also, that the guidelines on neologisms are, by definition, guidelines. Official Wikipedia POLICY states that subjects must only be verifiable to have a page on Wikipedia. As previously demonstrated, this article is verifiable.
As such, I support the keeping of this article on two grounds: one, that perceived "point-of-view" discrepancies are not grounds for deletion, and two, that this particular neologism is verifiable and notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:13Z

KPDF-CA

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

A low powered station, not notable. Lacks independent sourced information

Original Research. What encyclopedic value does it contribute? Alan.ca 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Excellent source, please include it in the article. I wonder if you could find an independent source supporting notability. Alan.ca 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article already contains a link to the FCC database entry on KPDF-CA here, which verifies most of the information in this article. The history section appears encyclopedic in tone and contains information someone who was looking up info on the station might find useful. I don't find any evidence of advertising, blatant or otherwise. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What information would we find useful in this article that is not in the fcc link? Alan.ca 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone could please answer how this article meets
    WP:CORP#Criteria for companies and corporations I may be able to withdraw the nomination. Alan.ca 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A Spanish-language Class-A TV station which, as it states in the article, is seen both over the air and on cable systems, and which serves the 5th-largest city in the U.S., which is 34% Hispanic, seems notable to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will be adding references to the article. Low-power stations are not automatically non-notable. This is especially true for Class A stations, which have met more stringent criteria in order to have primary station rights during the DTV conversion. dhett 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that a low powered station cannot be notable, but given that they have limited broadcast range, it would seem more likely. When you refer to citations to come, are you intending to meet the
WP:CORP guideline? Alan.ca 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
In Phoenix, a Class A station with a 40-mi signal radius, reaches nearly the same number of households as a full-service, full-power station with an 80-mi signal radius. And yes, I do intend to meet the
notability, each FCC application and notice concerning the station contributes to that station's notability. dhett 07:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
By that definition every publically traded company would be eligible as well as they are all registered with the SEC. Alan.ca 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contributes to notability, not creates it. I still debate how applicable
CRTC has business with them, you don't hear much about them. On the other hand, because of Jan Pachul's antics with the CRTC, you might find several independent articles about Star Ray TV. Which is the more notable station? I submit it's CIII-TV. dhett 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting thoughts there. You may want to start a discussion on one of the policy or guideline talk pages. According to policy
wp:v, no third party sources, no article, how else do we verify the statements? If it's just a simple reprint of FCC info, why do we need an article? Alan.ca 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. I've been putting together secondary sources to complete the Class A stations in the western US, but there have been several stations for which I can find nothing else but the FCC info. I will not author those articles for just that reason. However, television stations often get third-party mention as part of a larger article. See, for example, World staying tuned to Mexican telenovelas, an article which makes mention of KPDF in a couple of paragraphs, but the article is not about the station itself. The same is true for Spanish-language TV outlets boost power, viewers, which devotes the last few paragraphs to KPDF and
notability guideline? I contend that it is, due to the reasons I stated in my previous response. However, I would judge the one-sentence reference to KPDF in MediaWeek Market Profile: Phoenix as trivial, and would not cite it. Note — I am adding the first two references to the KPDF-CA article, as external links now, but will refine the article later. dhett 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

Structuration. —Quarl (talk
) 2006-12-27 02:16Z

Structuration Theory

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

This is either nonsense or legitimate postmodernism, I can never distinguish between the two. If the latter, it appears to be covering much the same ground as

original research. Opabinia regalis 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete all except Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma, for which there's no consensus. Conscious 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpectraSite Tower Holopaw

Paramount Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WVFJ Tower Saint Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viacom Tower Riverview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Riverview-33569 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tampa Tower General Partnership Tower Riverview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Media General Tower Saint Ansgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red River Broadcast Tower Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mississippi Authority for Educational Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hearst-Argyle Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Augusta Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hearst-Argyle Tower Watsonville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Media General Tower Forest Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Cedar Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpectraSite Tower Holopaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Boykin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NYT Broadcast Holdings Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Media General Tower Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joint Venture TV Tower Bithlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Bithlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WWRR Renda Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QueenB Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sinclair Television Tower Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NVG-Amarillo Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As cleanup following

WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 07:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as per nom. Gordon Bennett, how many of these articles are there??? Bwithh 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.
    T|C) 08:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete all per nom--Dmz5 10:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. First, I don't like the
    WP:NOT#DIR either, so there's a good reason the nominator wasn't more specific about that. Mast height is one of the least significant discriminators once you get below the top 10 which are interesting because of their height alone. The terrain is a major factor in that, and the demographics. Gene Nygaard 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Watching the AfDs for the mast articles I believe that, faced with a huge number of articles, the submitter has organised them by height as a way to break down the task. This is likely because they are sorted that way on the list of masts page. I doubt the submitter is intending it be taken as a primary reason for deletion, other than low-height masts do not have their height as a reason for notability. Akihabara 13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There may not be a line stating "Wikipedia is not a collection of unremarkable masts," but the spirit of
    WP:NOT#IINFO is certainly maintained by deleting these articles. I have yet to see a coherent argument for why articles like these should be included in Wikipedia, and if every manmade electronic structure is given its own page, then Wikipedia will be unreasonably bloated, and beyond control. Charlie 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It isn't covered there in those guidelines, so a mere unadorned reference to them is not sufficient. At a minimum, there would need to be a showing of what the rule is and how this fits under that rule, and there have been no coherent arguments along those lines.
There are fewer manmade structures over 400 m tall than there are episodes of one long-running soap opera. There are fewer manmade structures over 400 m tall than there are no-name soccer players whose fans think they are famous enough to get by with only one name. There are fewer manmade structures over 400 m tall than there are links in the "What links here" of some one sentence articles about no-name villages with three page navigation boxes linking to all their neighboring no-name villages. There is no more room for growth in the tall masts, but there are several million villages which don't yet have Wikipedia articles, and likewise a few billion people and twice as many manga and anime characters as people. Gene Nygaard 13:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the things you say are true, and none of them represents a reason why Wikipedia needs these particular articles. In addition, the nominator pretty clearly states that none of the towers "are notable in any way whatsoever". This seems to be a fairly coherent argument, to which you have not provided a response. Charlie 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These arguments don’t establish notability, which is the nominators main argument for deletion. And there are more fish in the sea than manmade structures over 400 m tall. These statistics mean nothing- not every structure over 400 m tall is notable. Fledgeling 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the nominator cited for the reasons was "per
WP:NOT#IINFO
" with no citatation to any notability criteria whatsoever, just a bald claim.
Every one of the towers in all these articles (all American), however many are listed, are taller than the Empire State Building, the second tallest building in America, including the antenna which adds 204 ft (62 m) to its height. That in itself gives them a certain degree of notability.
Every one of these towers listed is also higher than the roof of
Sears Tower, the tallest building in the United States, though they don't reach quite as high above the ground as the antenna on top of it. Gene Nygaard 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Gene, the list of masts, if I counted right, details 132 masts over 500m in the US alone. I don't think that makes them notable. I do believe that (say) the top 10 in the US may be notable, perhaps the top 20 at a push. Once you take into account masts in other countries, those nominated for deletion certainly become non-notable based on their height alone. Of course something else may make them notable. I do accept that we're getting close to a point where they cease being "just another mast", when it needs to be considered more carefully. Akihabara 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to count up all the masts in other countries that are over 500 m tall: there are exactly zero of them. The one in Poland that was once the tallest in the world collapsed.
It's pretty easy to count the other structures of any other type anywhere in the world that are taller than 500 meters:
Petronius Platform, which would take you all the way up to five. Have I missed any? Gene Nygaard 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
So, how many masts are there outside the United States which are taller than the shortest one on this current list nominated for deletion? Zero, isn't it. I didn't double-check all of them again; all of these were over 443 m, and I'm pretty sure they are all over the 460 m of
Balashikha Transmission Mast, and that that is currently the tallest one outside the United States. Gene Nygaard 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Incorrect. If you actually look at the
list of masts, you see well over 50 in the 600 m + range. NOT… “five” as you say, and this is in the US alone. Thats makes these masts non-notable height-wise by comparisonFledgeling 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It is indeed four (also zero) as I say (I don't count Petronius Platform). What exactly is it that you don't understand about 4 "structures of any other type" over 500 m anywhere in the world including the U.S.A., or about 0 masts "outside the United States" taller than the the ones nominated for deletion here? That list at
list of masts is a worldwide list, not a U.S. list. Gene Nygaard 08:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure what the issue is here in any case? Only non-trivial press coverage or other third-party sourcing makes a thing notable, so regardless of who's correct on height, if feature-length pieces have not been written about the structure, it's not notable-even if it's several thousand feet high. Seraphimblade 08:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are thousands of feet high. Two thousand, to the nearest thousand. Same as the tallest structures ever made by man, when rounded to the nearest thousand feet. Gene Nygaard 14:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? Comparisons against any other type of structure mean nothing! Notable amongst other masts is what we are looking for. If you again, actually look at the list, all the 600 m + structures that are listed are in the US- hence that’s what i said. And you haven’t addressed Seraphimblade’s point: Only non-trivial press coverage or other third-party sourcing makes a thing notable! Height is not the only reason unless it is in the top 10 or so. Just because its tall doesn’t mean it meets the criteria.Fledgeling 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Some might be notable for something, but it is hard to find any newwspaper article based on the corporate name of the company which owns it. Edison 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. What else is there to say? Fledgeling 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and repeat as collection of non-notable structures. Seraphimblade 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody will miss them. Maddy626 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma, It was the tallest structure in the world at the time it was built. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:20Z
  • Delete all except Griffin Television Tower Oklahoma. As a part of this cleanup, can someone create a sucession box for the highest towers in the US and place it in the appropiate articles? I think it is clear the this fact is notable and the towers replaced by and that suceeded by the specific tower are notable and should be listed in the article. Vegaswikian 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Nominator has misstated the facts with respect to American Towers Tower Cedar Hill which is over 500 m tall (two towers, one over, one just under). Gene Nygaard 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gene, I would like to ask you to step back for a moment, and look at this from a different angle. Forget the exact heights of various masts, or whether the nominator has all of his facts straight. You certainly seem to be adamant that these articles be kept, despite the number of those who disagree. This is admirable, and I would hate to think we are bullying you, or any others in a (seemingly) minority view. Therefore, I would like to ask: Why exactly do you think that these articles about various masts should remain in WP? If you think they add to WP's mission, I would really like to hear your reasons. I want to see WP cleaned up, but not at the expense of articles that support the mission, and I make no pretenses to omnicience. Charlie 10:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't created any of these articles, and don't have any significant time invested in any of them.
I haven't created any of the lists, either, though early on I did quite a bit of formatting of the tables in a couple of them.
There probably were too many articles. The excess have mostly been deleted already.
The biggest problems with this nomination include:
The bogus concern about "Once you take into account masts in other countries" (Akihabara). There are zero masts in other countries taller than the tallest one here; there once was at least one that was in fact the tallest in the world, but it fell down. There are only three structures of any kind whatsoever outside the United States which extend more than 500 meters above ground, and one more that tall that is mostly underwater.
The fact that all of these masts are in the United States, yet the only numbers that have been mentioned are the maximum height in meters (and as I pointed out, one may exceed that), without any mention of the height in feet. Most Americans are not as comfortable working with metric units as I am. A very significant number of Americans won't even try to figure out what this means.
  • Every one of these masts is over 1,500 feet tall.
  • 23 of 24 masts in 23 articles are over 1,550 feet tall. One is 1549 ft. The Empire State Building remains the tallest in the U.S. at 1250 feet to its roof, and 1454 feet to the top of its antenna. The shortest of those nominated here reaches 95 feet higher than the antenna on the Empire State Building. All of these are at least 98 ft taller than the roof of the Sears Tower at 1451 ft, but all are shorter than the Sears Tower with antenna which adds another 279 feet.
  • 10 of 24 nominated here are over 1,600 feet tall, with the tallest at 1661 ft.
Even in meters, the nominator just vaguely said that "all are below 500 meters", without saying that "all are over 470 meters".
Seraphimblade expressed concern about sources, but that is the one thing that could be lost in deleting these articles, is the additional source information other than the FCC certifications that is contained in some of these articles.
I'd suggest that for now, you leave the ones over 1,600 feet, and revisit it later if necessary. A hundred articles isn't going to overwhelm "Wikipedia"; it isn't going to make it likely that these will show up frequently for anybody pressing the "Random article" link. There are no legitimate concerns about proliferation; there are none missing over the shortest one listed in this AfD. Gene Nygaard 15:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We arnt looking for Statistics on how these match up on other types of structures. When compared to other masts, all these listed fall short. I even think we don’t need all of the masts in the 600 m + range, unless they are in the top 10 or otherwise notable. You don’t cite some of your evidence about heights in other countries, as well.Fledgeling 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - I think that there is some concern about proliferation: though not specifically articles about masts. Look back over the AFD's for just the last week, and see how many times the author of an article about a non-notable subject says something like "well, I only wrote the article because I saw this other article about an even less notable subject." Charlie 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note my comment isn't part of the nomination, it's part of the discussion. I'll take your word for it that masts this high are unique to the US, I have no idea. However you haven't addressed my basic point, which I think is similar to the concerns others have: there are over a hundred of these left, so their height alone doesn't make them notable. I see little reason to keep any other than the highest ten or twenty, and your discussion only refers to their notability on the basis of their height. As someone else mentioned, I also do not intend to single out masts here. Akihabara 14:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me reply to Gene about his concern arguments: I stand accused of the mass murder of over two hundred articles about masts, and also attempting to "slip one in" by deliberately misstating the mast height in one article. The misstatement about the height was unintentional in that yes, the nomination did include ONE article containing one of two masts which was within the height range specified in the nomination. Those editors who have been participating in the debates over the last 2 weeks will know that the deletions are taking place in a systematic manner, and it should be obvious that the AfDs are grouped and are progressing according to ascending order of mast height. Masts in excess of 500m will be put under the spotlight in due course, so please don't wet yourself about just one which apparently falls outside. None of the articles being proposed for deletion are in any way special or encyclopaedic. If anyone has volumes to write about any special mast in compliance with wiki policies, an article can be created. I am not wantonly destroying, but quite the opposite. Please refer to edit history of the
    List of masts
    article for the efforts I have put into the subject.

For a fuller exposition of my motivations and rationale, I would refer you to an essay in my personal space here. Ohconfucius 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as no-one has attempted to refute that this can be

verified. Deletion of this version does not prejudice against a verified article being created in this one's place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Workflow recovery

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

For one thing, this seems to fail

WP:OR unquestionably, since no external sources are cited or even mentioned. It may, in fact, be nonsense. I found this in a list of articles needing "copyediting," but upon three readings I could not even determine what this article is meant to be about, so I am moving it here. Charlie 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Don't see any problems - may have already been fixed. --Sigma 7 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, it certainly failed
    WP:V as is, but that said it might well be a real term in some field (human resources? project management?). I'd say the article could be salvaged if its given a non-jargon context from an out-of-world perspective, and some citation to prove it wasn't something made up in school one day. If those things don't occur, then weak delete. -Markeer 13:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete. This is
    word salad: Workflow is a model of an ordered sequence of activities that invoke operations from partners of workflow process; each activity reads some input objects (variables) and write some output objects (effect objects). Objects are defined within the workflow model. Workflow doesn't contain any states and values of objects — these are found in an instance of the workflow. Is it possible to be less concrete? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep or merge Workflow is a significant concept in the design of business processes and software to support those processes, and this article is about handling errors that occur in the execution of a workflow process. That said, this article is totally lacking in context and fairly unreadable, so at the least drastic cleanup is needed. Can someone who knows more about the subject clarify whether "workflow recovery" is really the most common term for this and if there's enough to say about it to merit a separate article as opposed to a section in the workflow article? Pinball22 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There aren't any references or context, and it was difficult for me to find out what was going on. In addition, it's may be more suitable to create a subsection within workflow once it's possible to meet article criteria. --Sigma 7 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. An important concept, but horribly presented in its current form. Maddy626 09:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article is terrible as it stands, needs quite a bit of work, especially with
    SkierRMH 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Important topic. Just needs improvement. Nunquam Dormio 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. All of these "business process" articles, with their "inputs", "outputs", and "processes", seem to me to be abstract to the point of evasiveness. While I will admit that there are people out there who earn their bread by talking in this way, I am not really convinced that any of these articles really has an actual subject to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:22Z

William Hawi

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

Although the person seems notable the article is biased and will be too much work to wikify. Note for instance the use of the word 'Martyr'

WP:NPOV ArchStanton 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep Notable and should be retained. Article needs more references and citations. I've added some to the "Death" section. Anybody want to help out on a different section? CuriousGiselle 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thank you! i would appreciate any help... I am starting to include references and notes and i would appreciate if you can point out where such additions are needed. Jinanez 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable. Maddy626 09:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability well stated, buzz words deleted, could use a little wikification - but that seems to be an ongoing project.
    SkierRMH 06:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Inherent bias problem (article writer is subject's grandson), but notable enough. Ford MF 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as no sources that are non-trivial (i.e. not passing mentions) and reliable (i.e. not blogs, wikis or forum posts) were found to refute the nomination and satisfy policy (specifically

verifiability). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Falling Sand Game

Falling Sand Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable web game. No independent verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not a game guide. –  Anþony  talk  07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This game is a paradise for little children to learn cause and effect. Even if you see this Falling Sand Game as only a game, for me this game can help children to learn some new things, look to world in a totally different way. I favor to keep this article by improving it and adding additional information about it. — Pls1pls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Neither commercial in nature nor a true gaming guide, this entry provides useful information on the history of the game and the components which comprise it. — 74.132.128.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    SU 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I think this article is useful for the people who play the game, giving guides as to how to play or what to, it is also advertising, earning money for creators who can lead their lives. And it is only useful to those who play the game, but then again, what would happen if we deleted the creationism article because it was useless to atheists and gentiles of the christian faith. Neod4000 21:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC) — Neod4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What? First of all,
WP:NOT wiki is not a place to advertise. Second of all, there's a difference between notability and usefulness. Argue creationism's "usefulness" all you want, but you can't deny it's notability. This game has yet to be proven that it is notable. If you want to save it, find sources. -Ryanbomber 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect. If you want to contest the prod, please do so in a new deletion debate. MER-C 08:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt shanley

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

This is an exact copy of Matt_Shanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadonpaper (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:23Z

Quads FC

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

I'm asking this page to be deleted due to lack of notability. In fact, this page was speedily deleted soon after it was created, but was restored by an admin after the one who created this article had asked to do so. Since then, little has been done to "improve" the page, while it would not make Quads FC notable enough anyway. Julius Sahara 07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per
    WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu t/c 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:V with only 11 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wholly non-notable amateur team. The Banana Shots, who are mentioned in the same article as another team in the same league, have already had an article deleted on WP for exactly the same reasons.... ChrisTheDude 09:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatantly non-notable club. Qwghlm 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just a bunch of guys who get together in a park and play football. Maddy626 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -
    SkierRMH 23:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • DoNotDelete -
    WP:ORGbollockmeister07 23:29, 07 January 2007 (UTC) Kick around in the park? Are you retarded, these lads slug their guts out, it is a religion not just a football team! It is rumoured all deletion of their profiles come with a jehad curse.. Who knows if its true? Obviously you guys don't leave your room and were never picked for the school team. I bid you good day![reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • DoNotDelete Listen people, Quads FC are a well known local team that play in the Wirral. Now i know that the Wirral isn't big but they have a cult following amongst supporters across the Wirral. I created the document and requested it be restored when it was originally deleted and was awaiting further help to help improve the page from the guy that deleted it (which he offered). —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by 81.105.94.32 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Rane

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

Article was deleted using prod and deletion was then contested at deletion review (see lengthy nomination statement there), which is how it ended up here for further discussion. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, a few google hits, but nothing spectacular. Has been tagged for improvement for a couple of months, with no subsequent re-edits. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article is completed with relevant information by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My comment when I prodded the article was "non notable artist; even the Rane Gallery site doesn't list any museum holdings or articles on him". I read the deletion review statement, and that didn't change my opinion. --Brianyoumans 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia That Anybody Can Edit.. Maddy626 10:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De'ete fails
    SkierRMH,23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:23Z

Homeless in hawaii

Homeless in hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This appears to be an essay consisting of

original research. Heimstern Läufer 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I totally agree and messages have been left to this effect on his talk page but he is not responsive to changing it (and in fact just removes the deletion tags). After reading a recent NY Times article about this subject (which oddly enough he did not use as a source) I think there is definitely a viable article here.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:24Z

Jimmy Flame

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

Person does not meet notability requirements. Possible vanity. ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, quite a few records and titles is enough for notabilty. All very obscure indeed. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Regardless of how many records and titles he has, none of them are SOURCED. Also, possible hoax: note the claim of "Would later join forces with Ben Shepherd of Soundgarden and Nirvana to form the rock band ZaFO." Likely untrue, certainly not sourced. Charlie 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything in the article is either non-notable or a lie. Google gives nothing (literally) for the Ben Shepherd claim; "Jimmy Flame and the Sexxy Boys" get only 49 unique hits, and none of them assert notability; "Jimmy Flame"+"The Roswells" gets 13 unique G-hits- again, no importance found; he has never wrestled on anything higher than a local level; none of the record companies on which he has released music are even remotely notable (for example, only 15 unique hits for "Headlock Records", and some of those are for an unrelated label). -- Kicking222 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yet another garage band. Just what we need. Maddy626 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. --
    Folantin 10:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails
    SkierRMH,23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:24Z

List of artists played on Radio Disney

List of artists played on Radio Disney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the point to having this list?

WP:NOT a radio station playlist. Andrew Levine 08:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:25Z

SwiftSwitch

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

Also:

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

This is not really a very important thing. It is a server browser for an MMORPG, which in my opinion is not important at all. However this is just my Point of View and if the general opinion here differs, it will be kept. J.J.Sagnella 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant attack page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Pribich

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

Non-notable, orphan article, possible vanity (see the article's Talk page) Hashomer 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

► 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ace Combat X Super Aircraft

Ace Combat X Super Aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NOT a game guide or game manual, indiscriminate information, fancruft. Delete DarkSaber2k 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Now perhaps you people don't care but I know when I was a new fan I looked everywhere for information regarding this Fictional plane becasue I thought it was real and wanted to learn more about it, and I know I'm not the only one, had there been a Wikipedia article about it at the time it would have made things a LOT easier. They used to have indevidual articles for these aircraft but people argued there wasnt enough info to make one article so they combined them all into one, the one that is now being proposed to be deleted entirely.
Oh, and The Kinslayer "some people involved with the articles" dislike it when other people who know absolutely nothing about the subject make massive deleations to them. Cbale2000 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I suppose somone who has followed the series since the first game would know absolutely nothing about it wouldnt they? Maybe you should stop trying to make comments about people you know absolutely nothing about.The Kinslayer 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't naming names, I was just generalizing becasue I know there are people who haven't followed the series are also some of the people making radical changes. Cbale2000 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be
    Fictional style guidelines. --Kunzite 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep look the article is not "a game guide or game manual, indiscriminate information, fancruft." it is a wikipedia article that gives people information on the super aircraft of the game give me an example of this. Also what the hell is fancruft. Also do any of you even have the game and know about the aircraft.Sam ov the blue sand 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC) A true Hebro[reply]
It doesn't matter if we own the game or not. We're discussing the article about the game and not the game itself. Some have suggested that this article goes into so much minute detail that it violates core
Writing about fiction. --Kunzite 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge to
    WP:FICTION for now. (If the entire series or articles on fictional airplanes was put up for deletion, I'd vote transwiki/delete because of the previously mentioned precendent. One by one AFDs often lead to confusing and uneven enforcement of policy.) The target article is very light on substance. (It has one large table a few paragraphs of text.) X-02 Wyvern, ADF-01 Falken, and XFA-27 should be summarized on the page. Fenrir (Ace Combat) should be merged to the page. All of them need to have the game guide elements removed. (i.e. "Unlocking"). --Kunzite 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
AGH WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE NOT GET!!! it is not fancruft, and don't give me policies I've already read over and over, and you still have yet to give me any examples as to what you mean, most of the unlocking parts have been taken out. And Fenrir is a super weapon, not a part of a damn main article plus if we were to merge it, it would look like the most freakin long and retarded looking article I've ever written and I've written some pretty long articles.Sam ov the blue sand 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC) A true Hrebro[reply]
Civility, please
.
Have any of your "pretty long articles" gone over the
encyclopedic
treatment of the article is made. That means citing sources outside of the primary.
Anyway:
In-universe statement
: "It is believed that the XR-45 Cariburn may be a very early prototype of what will one day evolve into Neucom Inc's Radical- series aircraft, the R-101, R-102, and R-103." It is believed is a weasel statement. Just who believes this? Why do we care jets follow its design path? What impact does it have outside of the plotline of the game? This is very much like "cruft" ... it's the gunk that builds up in atticles. It's very much centered to fans of the game. People who don't know what the game is should be able to read the sentece and understand the context and the reasoning for things.
"The materials which it is created out of and how it is structured make it very cost effective, reliable and easy to maintain on the frontlines." Why do we care that it is cost effective and easy to maintain? Is it part of the game play? You walk a fine line here, though... you could easily go into gameplay.
"The YR-302 is the first aircraft of it's size to use a pheonominal four jet engine system, rather than the typical one or two. The Fregata is the first Fighter jet in history to use this four engine system. It's role is said to be ground attack, though it is capable of operating at ultra-high altitudes." Again, this is totally in-universe. It's got a lot of hyperbole in it too. Who says its role is in ground attack? Actually, the more I analyze these, the more I lean toward outright deletion. It seems to be entirely in-universe. --Kunzite 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but it is all in the game if you would have the game you would know that but since you don't have the game I guess you wouldn't know that. And the design concept is plot related showing that each of the games interlink within each other to make a story line. I have no clue how pheonominal got in there but it will be removed. And the rest is in the games and is plot related. I rest my case. Any other questions?Sam ov the blue sand 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    crappy crufty article
    was the FA a couple of days ago. Anyway, since there's no hope of it being kept due to the opposition here, I'm in favor of a merge.
I agree on torchic, how thw hell did that thing become a FA? Anyways no its not its 2 to 2 to 2 pretty even if you ask me.Sam ov the blue sand 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume because it has so many references. But still, the topic is even more crufty than this. Zaku Two 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah huh... you lost me there, (were you talking about Torchic or somthing else) is that Keep, Delete, or a Merge?Sam ov the blue sand 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into
Ace Combat X, which already has a list of Aircrafts. Tonytypoon 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
ya I made that list and it only has a list not a detailed summary of the aircraft in the list so that wouldn't work too well.Sam ov the blue sand 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey instead of deletion how about helping me with the article and revert the crap you're talking about because I need examples and no ones giving me any so what the hell am I fix if you don't give me examples. Man you guys don't even give it a chance for retribution.Sam ov the blue sand 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I created Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft article to correct the mistakes done here.Sam ov the blue sand 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and God

Mathematics and God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

not article but a collection of citations;

original research and is a battlefield for POV warriors from both sides. Mathematics is basically not about God, and when mathematicians speak about God, they speak as philosophers and not as mathematicians in the narrow sense. Ioannes Pragensis 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Abstain. The previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematics and God. It was argued there that "Mathematics and God" (more properly, "Mathematics and religion") is a proper subject for an article. The article is not only a collection of quotations, though I agree that there are too many citations and that there is little coherence. It has been in a bad state since the previous AfD, more than a year ago, so I think it's better for Wikipedia to delete the article. However, I also think that would be against the deletion policy: bad articles on a encyclopaedic subject should be sent to cleanup. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link. - There are of course encyclopedic facts on the border between mathematics and religion, but they are very disparate (from the pagan Pythagorean number mystic over Christian Pascal's Wager to the atheistic philosophy of Bertrand Russel) and IMHO cannot be summarized into a single coherent article.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I voted strong delete the first time this came up for deletion. I'm still not happy with its contents, though I tried to improve it once it was kept (for lack of consensus). It is not just quotations, but it is little more than that; there has never been any attempt to add context and discussion, which it still needs. If, say, Plato, Newton, Euler, and Erdős all used the word "God", they had rather different ideas in mind. (Plato was a pre-Christian, Newton was an idiosyncratic alchemist, Euler was Christian Protestant, and Erdős was agnostic.) You'd never know it from the article. Worse, it seems that fans of believing in God (presumably in the Judeo-Christian tradition) stop by from time to time and delete the section with dissenting voices ("God as human invention"). I like history and human interest; I do not think this article has enough of either to justify its persistence. --KSmrqT 11:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is apparently a list of quotes on the same theme at the Wikiquote site, so there is no reason to host the same thing here, especially since the article, such as it is, pretty much is just a list of quotes. I agree that a `mathematics and religion' article may be a good idea, but it would be tough to do it without lapsing into original research and generally making an obnoxious mess of things. Rosenkreuz 12:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The topic of the article is rather broad and ill-defined. We have references on everything from ontological proofs of God's existence to philosophical references to Platonic mystical remarks. This article seems to be a collection of any kind of semi-spiritual-philosophical quotes about mathematics. This in itself is a problem, but a more serious one is that I get a feeling that NOR is being violated. This may be one of those cases when it is an unpublished synthesis of an assortment of topics. An article like
    unsigned comment was added by C S (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Delete: this is nonsense. the content of the article needs to be found under the various theories of transcendentalism related to the philosophy of mathematics. as it is, this article is just a mess and nonsense without the other context.--Buridan 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although I voted to keep during its first AfD, I now find that I agree with most of the comments above. I would like to save this article — I still think there is encyclopedic potential here — but no one seems to be inclined or able to do the necessary work, and more importantly I now begin to think that it might be impossible to stay within NOR. I'm more of an inclusionist than deletionist, but I can't really vote to keep, given its present state, and its predictable future. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with CRGreathouse. The subject is one that has arisen over the course of intellectual history. It deserves coverage here. I endorse Jitse Niesen's view that the proper title should be "Mathematics and religion," since deism is one of the points of contention. The proper response to a poorly written article or an article whose neutrality is disputed is better editing, not deletion. Chenx064 02:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point on the name, I agree. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most important deletion reason is not its poor state (although I do not believe that somebody here is able to write it better) but
WP:OR. If you make the topic even broader by the renaming, then this problem will be even more accute. I agree that many pieces of information in the article are notable, but not under this title - it should be separated into different articles divided by schools of thought and so on. I am not against a category named Mathematics and religion, but an article like this is a biased mess and will be a mess forever.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Just for your information, Dawkins is a biologist. Sigh.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, he's an evolutionary biologist, if you want to get picky. But his recent efforts have highlighted the clash between religion and science generally. Stop being a
dick. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It might be of interest for you that we are discussing Mathematics and God and not
Religion and Science. Deep sigh of desperation.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes Ioannes has this exactly right. Paul August ☎ 20:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deep sigh that Ioannes is deliberately missing what I'm saying because he's peeved that his AfD isn't going the way he wants. *Hand over forehead* What is the world coming to that people won't vote that way Ioannes wants! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things are even much worse than you think. The horrible truth is that I fully understand what are you saying and why. Tears.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are uncalled for. I don't think I'm the only one that sees that Ioannes is himself making a point. It has nothing to do with him trying to "own" the discussion. --C S (Talk) 06:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're confused as to what the subject is. This isn't an article on clashes between science and religion. --C S (Talk) 06:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Mostly OR, but could become more. Just H 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've become convinced that the people saying "keep" don't have very good reasons. Given the real issues with the article (see my longer comment above), delete seems the only option. --C S (Talk) 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reluctantly, Per Chan-Ho and others. I would be happy to see an attempt to make this content encyclopedic by CRGreathouse or others, but I now think that any such efforts should take place in user space. Please feel free to userfy this material. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. It's a notable subject, as evidenced by the number of quotations we've found. I don't think the article should be deleted just because it's poorly written and has POV problems. This article simply needs to be rewritten and doesn't merit a deletion as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. After doing a little bit of research online I can find almost nothing relating mathematics and god. If it were a notable subject there'd be a little more than just quotes. A mathematics and religion article would have some merit though. --Calibas 19:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV and poor quality was discussed in
original research and nobody knows how to avoid it. It is perhaps based in the fact, that the subject is too broad and not clearly defined. A simple observation: After three years of existence, the article has many religion-related quotes from different mathematicians (and interestingly no mathematics-related quotes of theologians), but no one single non-trivial sentence about its subject, the relation of mathematics and God. "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence." (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
).
  • Keep, encyclopedic subject in need of an article (and cleanup). Ford MF 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete,

WP:CSD#A7, db-web. Deizio talk 15:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

BT Pipeskater

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

Unsourced, notability dubious, messy quality Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)Merry Christmas! 11:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as
    unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Kvapilová

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

It seems it fails

WP:NOTE, lacks of sources, notice about her best friend is irrelevant. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I should have looked at Vogue and Cosmo, sorry out of the biz for too long...Alf photoman 14:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some reliable sources about this model and verification why she is notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lets see, Vogue Cosmo front page, 3000 Ghits mostly in Czech, sorry Babelfish doesn't help. Bookings for Armani Jeans/Beatrice as front girl and according to Look International: At this year's New York Fashion Week Petra was on the catwalk for Peter Som, and at the Milan Fashion Week she can be seen at the shows of Emporio Armani, Marni, Philosophy by Alberta Ferretti and Trussardi. Pretty good if she is not notable.... Alf photoman 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree that the article is of abysmal quality Alf photoman 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As TruthGal said there are lots and lots of models. I think that the fact of work for some company is not enough for notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are lots and lots of catwalking models, most of them - like this one - not famous enough to be listed in an encyclopedia.TruthGal 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the reasons listed above, this article fails
    WP:V. Specifically, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Charlie 12:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete The covers of Vogue and Cosmopolitan (assuming we're not just talking about regional issues) and the New York and Milan Fashion Weeks are about as prestigious as it gets for a fashion model. If we can verify what Alf stated, then I'll upgrade my vote further. Caknuck 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search of "Tyra Banks" Vogue cover gets over 100,000 hits; a Google search of "Petra Kvapilová" Vogue cover gets 11 original pages. That enough to delete this entry? Okay... how about looking up her Vogue cover at http://www.vogue.co.uk/CoverArchive/ ? Oops, ya can't because Vogue has no listing for her. Nuff said.TruthGal 18:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How bout if you try Google again? I find more than 4 pages.... Alf photoman 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed my vote. I could only evidence of cover shoots for the Czech editions of "Style" and "Cosmo Girl". I checked all of the covers for the UK and German editions of Vogue for the last two years, as well as many of the US, French and Italian editions. She may have enough regional celebrity to warrant an article on the Czech WP, but not here. Caknuck 04:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, here in the Czech Republic she has already a celebrity status (see e.g. here http://www.stratosfera.cz/celebrity/clb.osobnost.php?osID=542), and celebs are notable.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, she is not notable even in Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another test - type in "Paulina Porizkova was born" into Google, and you get bio pages; type in ""Petra Kvapilová was born" into Google, and you get nothing. Paulina is a famous supermodel, Petra Kvapilová is not notable much less a "supermodel" as the article claims.TruthGal 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is not notable in the Czech Republic. Stratosfera is a tabloids publishing house and they they frequently generate articles like the one mentioned above (throw it on the wall, see if it sticks). Pavel Vozenilek 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:27Z

Michael Carroll (footballer)

Michael Carroll (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is unverifiable and a possible hoax. Google suggests there is no Michael Carroll currently playing for Limavady United[33], and there is no mention of a Michael Carroll on the Limavady website's senior team and youth team pages. --Muchness 11:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as hoax. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. no google hit. Anyway non notable. -- Cate | Talk 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google is not the only reference available. The player currently plays in the Reserve team and has appeared in a couple of friendlies for the senior team.Ryannus 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but if there are no (really only one reference in forum) reference in the FC site, it is non (yet) notable. Anyway, you don't give
verifiable sources. So I still vote delete until he is more notable. Cate | Talk 15:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - The Limavady website may not have been recently updated.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Ryannus (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:28Z

Jewlicious Festival

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

Non-notable - article indicates less than 400 particpants. adavidw 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:29Z

Global Orgasm for War Day

Global Orgasm for War Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable day, not to be confused with

WP:V. Contested prod. MER-C 11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE. I mean, come on. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Adavidw (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

► 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Milivoje Božić

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

Lack of sources for this article, possible

hoax. The subject is apparently an F1 Grand Prix winner, but I find no such winner, in fact, no Yugoslav winners at all for the competition. 17 unique Ghits, including wikipedia. Ohconfucius 08:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment there is not written he won Grand prix in Formula 1, there is written he won Grand Prix and Formula 1 license. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently Milivoje was a Yugoslav rally driver (he's listed as participating in a 1958 hillclimb), but reports of his fame may be otherwise exaggerated. Looks like Milivoje (and the page Serbi famosi) was deleted off the Italian WP. Tubezone 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't appear a hoax. He won at least one major race (the 1967 European Rally Cup). [37] --Oakshade 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That page suggests he was a winner of the Yu Rally, which counts towards scoring for the European Rally Cup, but is the whole Cup itself Bwithh 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe not a hoax, but no sources to corroborate/establish notability.--
    talk) 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···
joe 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless third party sources are presented that verify notability. Right now, the only claim to fame for the subject is winning a race that is not notable enough to have an entry of its own. Charlie 12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the first race of newly found rally, in 1967. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That may be the case. However, that statement is not backed up by a third party source, and indeed was not even present in the article. Charlie 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finding online articles from 60s especially from eastern Europe is in many cases impossible. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking that an "online" article be provided. Library research works, as well. Note that, from
WP:V as unverifiable. Charlie 12:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jenny Randles. Conscious 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Factor

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

This would be a neologism, if terms coined over 23 years ago can comfortably be called such a thing. But given that in 23 years Google has barely heard of it (most of the hits are for the music album by the same name — buy it from Amazon, download mp3s, read lyrics, etc.), I really don't think we need an article about what, to all intents and purposes, amounts to Ms Randle's original research which never really caught on. Rosenkreuz 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as stub. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:30Z

Changsha (poem)

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

already in Wikisource

heru|nar 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Question on the copyright of the original text, as well as the translation - what is the source thereof (as translations are also subject to copyright laws) and would this apply?
SkierRMH,23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Server Response File

Server Response File (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Non-notable file type, no notability asserted. Unreferenced, written in second person. Contested prod. MER-C 12:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I wonder what else the author did at computer college recently? I hope they don't come and share any more of it with us. Rosenkreuz 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I've tagged this for speedy as a blatant copyvio. Akihabara 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus).

talk | contribs) 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dhaam Dhoom

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

Unsourced

crystal balling. Contested prod. MER-C 12:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • This is a discussion. As for the concerns, it's still crystal balling and all sources must be
    reliable. MER-C 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The sources are reliable! Prince Godfather 12:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One's a list of screenshots from a movie (which doesn't count) and I'm not convinced about the other two. We'll see what happens. MER-C 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a notability threshold in the English language Wiki for movies made in languages OTHER than English? Eddie.willers 13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are currently no guidelines relating to notability of any films, English-language or otherwise.
    WP:NOTFILM was not outright rejected, but it is considered historical. -- Kicking222 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You can fall back on the standard notability threshold then - multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Trebor 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, it does have sources. Can you explain why you're not convinced about the other two? Trebor 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Also high budget Hollywood films are deleted until more information and/or release. I don't find such article is neccesary now, and before release a lot of things can changes. --Cate | Talk 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 4th source has been put up.Prince Godfather 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Um, the film launch for the film can be viewed here and here.
  • Weak delete as crystal balling. Similar articles on soon-to-exist English language films are deleted all the time. Ford MF 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why is there an importance to English films? Indian films are more known worldwide. Wikipedia is a worldwide project not a British/American project!Prince Godfather 12:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing precedent. Crystal balling is crystal balling in any language. Ford MF 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The film has started shooting. The sources all reveal this. Prince Godfather 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when it's started screening. Ford MF 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete even when a film is "shooting" there are a myriad of possibilities; the name will change, it won't go through production and won't be screened... that's why crystalballin' is not acceptable, just wait until the film is screened and then create the article.
    SkierRMH 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

► 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

RATB route 104

RATB route 104 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This seems to fail

verifiable third-party sources are listed. Charlie 12:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as advertising. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman Talk Contribs 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual bus routes are not normally notable unless they have some special feature (eg: being part of a Bus rapid transit system) Tubezone 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No bus routes, no vending machines, no mailboxes. Not inherently notable, and lacks multiple independent published sources.Edison 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I fail to see why this particular bus route is being picked out, considering that we have many articles on bus routes from all over the world. See, for example, Category:London bus routes. As an inclusionist, I believe that the bus route articles can be very useful, and not only for "travel guide" style information, but also by providing things like technical information, what vehicles are used on a route, the vehicle history, and stuff like that, which can actually be very useful when seeking a comprehensive source of information about a city's public transit system (i.e. this type of use is not travel-oriented, but rather research-based/informative). As to sources: what sources are you exactly looking for? Sources confirming that such a route exists? Sources confirming the termini and stops? This was taken from [42]. The information about the vehicles used was taken from [43], which is provided in the External Links. Finally, I fail to see what detriment this article brings to the encyclopedia, and how deleting it will in any way make a better encyclopedia. Ronline ✉ 12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point is to try and consolidate the long lists of stub articles, that often aren't updated properly. The general precedent is that only the transit authority that operates city buses, , such as the Chicago Transit Authority, should be listed, unless there's something notable about a route. London is an exception, not a rule. Also, the British bus nuts probably ain't going to be happy that you brought attention to their London bus route articles, it'll give the deleitionists ideas. I wouldn't have a problem with having this and the London buscruft transwikied to Wikitravel, which is really where it belongs, IMHO. Tubezone 15:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is very little to do with travelling in these articles. Most of the information relates to technical aspects of the route, particularly what vehicles were used, etc. In this way, the information is encyclopedic, and would be rather irrelevant at Wikitravel (i.e. why would travellers be interested that RATB route 104 used DAF SB220 buses before Mercedes Citaro, and that they are based at Pipera bus depot?) Ronline ✉ 03:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - why is London an exception? If London stays, then so should Bucharest. Biruitorul 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First thing, please read
WP:INN. It shouldn't be an exception, and that's why the London buscruft ought to go, too, so people don't run that example up the flagpole to show that bus routes in other places deserve articles. The flip side of the argument is that there's like two gazillion bus routes that don't have articles, what's special about this one? No notability is asserted. Tubezone 22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough. I suppose I could change my opinion if
these lines, or if London were also targeted for deletion. Do get back to me when that happens. Biruitorul 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I think this comes down to a classic deletionist vs inclusionist debate. Tubezone: you're saying that just because other bus routes aren't included, these shouldn't be either. As a person who sees Wikipedia as constantly-expanding and gradually including more and more particular and detailed information, I believe that it would be bloody great to see articles on as many bus routes as possible. To me, Wikipedia is about two things: depth of information and quality. How exactly will deleting this article enhance any of those aims? Ronline ✉ 03:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a {{

db-repost}} of a twice-deleted article. (aeropagitica) 20:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Aggressive street walking

Aggressive street walking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unsourced, sounds like a hoax Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)Merry Christmas! 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as a repost of content previously deleted. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's so Raven: The Movie

That's so Raven: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is full of speculation and there isn't a single source to verify that the movie is going to happen.

J Di talk 12:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:32Z

CelCius

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

Notability is not established- 'some speculate' is not a verifiable source (procedural nomination) ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I thought it should be a target of {{db-bio}} but already proded. So I nominated it as AfD: in my opinion Cameron Bowers fails
    WP:BIO. It is 20 years old singer without album that is presented will come soon, article is full of future tense. Google [44] gives 1 (one) hit - which might indicate possible hoax. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Links in What links here are all created by Lamont2 (contributions/talk) author of CelCius. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:33Z

4th Studio Album

4th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
CKY Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Crystal balling, unreleased album, inappropriate title.. Also nominating CKY Live for same reasons. Deizio talk 13:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:33Z

Parkgate Retail World

Parkgate Retail World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable shopping centre. A disputed prod, removed without satisfying notability concern. Akihabara 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing notable about this shopping centre, and I don't think we need an article on every shopping centre in the world. Jayden54 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources to show it meets
    unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    SkierRMH,00:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

► 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fighters + Lovers

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

Non-notable company --Gabi S. 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for [45] and [46] - multiple sources make it notable. Trebor 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment articles itself are not sufficient to estabilish notability. There are millions newspapers articles about nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This clearly has. What counts as sufficient to establish notability? A newspaper article provides coverage and verifiable information, so that an article can be written. Trebor 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look here [47], an article about Santa Claus Supermarket - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent... Notice in newspapers does not assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask again: what does? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All you have are two or three newspapers articles. In newspapers there are thousands notices about crimes, elections, singing dogs ... Just buy The Economist and you'll find notices about hundreds of companies - small, big, ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying, but you haven't answered me about what would assert notability. Trebor 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully the second article you've provided, you will see it is rather about
Venstresocialisterne instead of keep or delete. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Merging would be a possibility. But I think there exists enough information for an article on both, neither article would be very short on its own. Trebor 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough information. Tonytypoon 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been able to find just two articles about this "notable" company [48] and [49] which really is not enough to assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by notability? I thought we had the common definition that if something has multiple non-trivial sources, it is notable. What would assert notability? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me, why it fails here Milivoje Bozic. Same situation. You tell me. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can also discuss what exactly is non-trivial published works. Newspapers article is not a non-trivial. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of another article isn't an argument for this one (although I will have a look at that AfD). Non-trivial is a measure of the depth of coverage - a newspaper article can easily be non-trivial, so long as there is enough information on the subject in question. In this case, there is. Trebor 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - There is a case for notability, and the BBC article fits the description of notability for non-trivial published worksin
    WP:N. If more sources can be found, I will consider a stronger position. 206.213.251.31 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Another couple of minutes looking gave [50] and [51]. Trebor 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added to that have been numerous irrelevant comments about local events in your newspaper and other AfDs. Argue in this case, for this article, not by making pointless comparisons. If you can give me a convincing reason for deletion (which isn't subjective), then I'll change my views. Trebor 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, and cleanup. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:34Z

Rick Ufford-Chase

Rick Ufford-Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable person --Gabi S. 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for [52] and [53] (and probably others, these were found in under a minute). Please say more than "non-notable" in the nomination - without reasoning, it's meaningless. Trebor 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Weak keep ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reasoning. Delete per nom is useless in a case where the nom doesn't have a proper argument (simply saying something is "non-notable" doesn't count). Trebor 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I found reliable sources. What's your point? Trebor 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete all. Will redirect

Bushiddo in a moment, as was suggested. Luna Santin 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Iddo Choi

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

I'm nominating Iddo Choi for deletion because I think it's at best a misrepresentation of something fictional as real and most likely simply a hoax or a violation of

WP:NFT. "Iddo Choi" returns 0 Google hits, the page uses a picture of a Pokemon for the image of this supposed martial artist, and Captain Planet and Ms. Frizzle are listed as his relatives. I'm going to add some more articles as well that were created yesteday and are intertwined with this one -- all of them describe as real supposed martial artists or techniques and then link those with anime characters or Pokemon. Most of the users that have edited these pages have edited nothing outside this set of pages; those that have edited other pages have gotten vandalism warnings for their changes. Pinball22 14:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional pages I'm nominating:

  • Strong Delete All per nom. Obvious hoax. Tevildo 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we might go for a G1. Appropriate tags added. Tevildo 14:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom all except Bushiddo which might make a good redirect to Bushido. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, {{

WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Novella Society

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

Fails to identify notoriety or significance SpikeJones 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Almost a db-spam. Founded in 2006... Akihabara 15:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non notable (and probably speedy-able). Jayden54 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:35Z

PasswordSafe

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

Article about a non-notable service. Google says only about 30 sites link to it. Apart from the fact that the article has serious POV issues and seems to be written by someone with an agenda, there is no notability asserted and little left worthy of an encyclopedia article. Akihabara 14:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:36Z

Masriwood

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

Non-notable

reliable sources. Also nominating the supposed coiner of the term, student journalist Darah Rateb. Robertissimo 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:37Z

Darah Rateb

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

Non-notable journalist. Ghits, once WP and mirrors removed, around 50. One, from the student publication of American University in Cairo, identifies her, as of March 2006, as "a senior majoring in business administration and political science,"[54] rather than, per the WP article, "a prominent Canadian-Egyptian journalist." This is clearly the same person, as both are identified as having traveled with Muslim televangelist Amr Khaled. Khaled is also the subject of the only bylined piece apparently available online, from English-language weekly Cairo magazine, which regularly accepts submissions from avocational journalists. Robertissimo 15:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Kangaroo. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:38Z

Kangarooo

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

This subject does not appear to meet our

WP:BIO guidelines. The website referenced in the article doesn't seem to be responding, and I've been unable to find any reliable sources on-line. This was speedied once before, but the author has contested deletion and I would like to bring this here for discussion in the event that there are Latvian sources I've overlooked. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Pilotguy. (aeropagitica) 20:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrath of the Barclay

Wrath of the Barclay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page for fan site for Norwich City F.C. supporters which seems to attract a lot of personal attacks and vandalism (Wikihooliganism?). I don't think it's notable, and I checked the other English football club categories and found that we don't even have articles on websites for Arsenal fans. So why should a non-Premiership (am I right about that this season?) get one? Daniel Case 15:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete per nom

MikeMorley 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:43Z

Robert S. Tornello

Robert S. Tornello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable under

MikeMorley 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Conscious 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy in horse racing

Controversy in horse racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Heavily POV and one sided, no real references other than promotion for an animal rights organisation. DavyJonesLocker 15:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:39Z

MPGH

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

Delete

original research and potentially libelous statements. Prod was removed. Gwernol 15:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:39Z

Liam Boyle

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

Non-notable local politician and teacher. Only external references are trivial directory entries.

WP:BIO: "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.". Was previously speedied as nn-bio. Demiurge 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Conscious 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wisdom

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

Corrected the AfD: it is a second nomination. The original nominator is 147.114.226.173, and I don't know the real motivation. Anyway Delete - non notable. Last discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wisdom. Cate | Talk 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, no consensus. 1ne 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gilbert (game designer)

See

WP:BIO. Andre (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD is not a vote. As I have already provided the sources in the first AfD, I see no point in keeping this open. Please take this to
WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You must allow the sources to be discussed in the AfD process. That is its purpose, not to just have an administrator judge the worthiness of an article and close discussions. As it happens, I contend that your sources support the notability of The Shivah, not of Mr. Gilbert. Therefore it would be reasonable to generate a consensus of delete or redirect. This relisted AfD is certainly valid. Andre (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly take this to DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, exactly, would DRV be a better forum for this discussion? I'm not asking for a reinterpretation of your decision, nor am I raising a "concern" about it. It was handled incorrectly and therefore I am relisting it so we can handle it properly. Andre (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This will be handled by *professionals* on DRV. I see no point in continuing here. You did not care to check the verifiability of the article. This person has been mentioned in *many* reliable sources apart from the ones I have provided in the first AfD. The reliable sources include ones from BBC, CNN, Reuters and others. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you mean by "*professionals*". I'm an administrator just like you or them, and I can close deletions same as you or them. Wikipedia does not have "*professionals*" or special users with added judgmental power. At any rate, regarding your argument (which, being as you are participating in the argument, should really exempt you from closing the argument), Mr. Gilbert himself is not the primary subject of any of the sources you cited (The Shivah was, and Gilbert was merely mentioned in connection with that), and WP:BIO states that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" is a requirement. Andre (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the *professional* part was rather a joke. However, if you feel that I did not close it nicely, this discussion would be better suited on
WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
99% of comedy is timing, and this is really not a very amusing time for a joke. Anyway, a relisting of this deletion would benefit the process, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't just run the AfD again. WP:DRV exists to serve certain purposes that may be similar to this, but it is not unusual or inappropriate to just relist a deletion to build a consensus or remedy an out-of-order closing. Why, it just happened recently with another deletion of mine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Fatman. At any rate, I'm going to have to leave my computer now, so no more of this instant communication -- but please accept that your unconventional AfD closing has led to a confusing situation and the best fix would be to let this AfD run its course. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO also states – Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Mr. Gilbert is not an author (this means of books), editor, or photographer. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People who program/write software are also known as authors. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But from context alone, let alone page history, we can clearly see that it refers to published authors. There's no ambiguity. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.. ?. Along with the sources – [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] — Nearly Headless Nick 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Gilbert's single independent adventure game, while it has received some press coverage, is hardly part of the enduring historical record, nor is it widely recognized. It's quite obscure, a curiosity at best, and borderline notable. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there are multiple independent reliable sources showing his notability they belong in the article, not just here. The article is also stubby, even after all the previous deletion debate. The multiple references noted by Nick seem to the the same Reuters story appearing in various sites, which to me counts as one refrence, and it sounds like it came from a press release, which is still worth something, I suppose. Edison 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who have gotten too used to hanging around here may have forgotten this, but the purpose of verifiability guidelines is to ensure that an article is verifiable, not to worship as an ineffiable God. If an article's notability is undeniably shown in its AFD discussion, then whether or not the article itself meets the guidelines is immaterial. -Toptomcat 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Mr. Gilbert is not notable. His game, The Shivah, may be -- but he is not. Andre (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the previous AFD was improperly closed, it really should be taken to DRV. -- Whpq 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:43Z

Cabling and Connections

Cabling and Connections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to me, this article must be deleted:

  1. The main topic of the article is unclear.
  2. The article talks about too many topics to be in only one article (about six different topics).
  3. Also, these topics are too different to be in only one article, even if the article is improved in the future, sooner or later, it must be split in many articles.
  4. That is the point, more accurate articles already exist about all the topics in this article (see
    Electrical conductivity
    and more) So this is like a list of few different topics a bit related together.
  5. Of course this article could be improved but it seems like nobody works on this article. The only significative edit is the first one (look at the History) which is also the only one edit by its editor (see User:Bensrob). According to me, if a list of these topics is really useful, wikipedians who used to work on articles related to cabling or connections should work on it.

Maybe these arguments are not very good, i'm a bit new about deletion criteria. Thanks for listening. Frédérick Lacasse 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now what this article is about (I thought it was some company or something else). Anyway, Sandstein nails all the important policies, completely original research and a pointless article. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Jayden54 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
  • Delete - this appears to be a grab bag of loosely associated definitions aggregated together into one article, but each item already has a much better article. -- Whpq 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator -- lucasbfr talk 07:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:43Z

Holy Laughter

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

Web site, looks to be unnotable and failing

WP:WEB. Granting that the string "holy laughter" brings up many hits, they don't seem to be related to this site. Herostratus 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:44Z

Jared Colinger

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

Procedural nomination to encourage debate and improvement of article after a contested speedy delete under

rtinp23 16:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep as nominator retracted reason for AfD. (aeropagitica) 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people in Hong Kong

Japanese people in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not a notable topic. No notable or reputable sources of information found either. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination retracted due to User:CaliforniaAliBaba's edits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete • per nom - The RSJ ¿Qué? 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Huwe 6 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep found two academic papers on them in about 5 minutes of googling. Also a visit to the HK Census/Stats Department website gave a population figure, which I added to the article. Will continue expanding. cab 05:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woh! Good job on the expansion there. In light of your additions, I'm retracting my nomination. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this were done for every nationality in every major city, the result would be ludicrous.ERTalk 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's now well sourced and of a reasonable length. The before and after diff shows quite an improvement. Good job CaliforniaAliBaba. Picaroon 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 17:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:45Z

Trumpet Bash

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

Non-notable event. johnpseudo 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

► 00:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Candice Woodcock

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

Contested speedy deletion, meets no

WP:POV. Sandstein 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, remember,
reliable sources that cover the article's contents? Sandstein 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of what I wrote in the article was just plain mucking around. However, the reasons I have listed for keeping the article can be supported by any website covering Survivor. Heck, if you really want to, you can watch the episodes on CBS' website. And I think I've made more of a case than just "I like it". --Isocyanide 18:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that is a case of not having
WP:INN. ColourBurst 20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
And some of them have articles. Please don't dismiss for that reason alone.--Isocyanide 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reality show contestant with no other credentials. At best, a merge to the main article. -- Whpq 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Survivor: Cook Islands. A prominent contestant on the show but no notability outside her appearance on the show. --Muchness 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: or merge redirect as suggested. I placed a db-bio speedy delete tag in the first place. Non-notable. If the notability can't or isn't written in the article, then the article needs to be deleted. The subject had a breakdown on the island, yawn, no notability unless the article really makes a case. As far as other articles, point them out and we'll get them deleted too (unless they assert notability truthfully and believably). Hu 08:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Candice was a notable contestant in the Cook Islands season. This article just needs some work. --The President of Cool 00:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She's notable, but this is a BAD ARTICLE. If anyone can improve it, then I'll change my vote. -- Scorpion 01:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arguments stated above - as there is no policy to exclude all contestants on survivor, or an effective policy which has ensured all contestants do not have a page, this article cannot be disputed. --User: Shakespeare and Wine 09:50 28 December 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 Redirect to (Ain't Nobody Loves You) Like I Do. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:46Z

(Tell Me) She Means Nothing to You at All

(Tell Me) She Means Nothing to You at All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

nn song that didn't chart or have any impact in music history from artist that has minor recording career. Fails

WP:SONG. Most of her singles have their own pages, I just wanted to test this one to see how it goes, then others can be considered Booshakla 17:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - a single that never charted. At best, a mention in the album article. -- Whpq 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a commercially released single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this meet any element (and I'm aware it's not official, but is close) of
WP:SINGLE? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. There does not need to be a page for every single LaToya Jackson ever had, I think only a handful of them have ever charted. And that is pretty vague reasoning to why it should be kept (if it happens, probably not). Booshakla 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not compelled by WP:SINGLE, which fails to address many major issues. It's a proposal, so it lacks any sort of binding situation here. And yes, there should be a page for every single released LaToya single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to
    ShadowHalo 05:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:46Z

The Deaner Does Jimi Tape

The Deaner Does Jimi Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I previously prodded this article, but the prod tag was removed. Not an official release, just seems to be some kind of tape produced by a member of Ween. Zero Google hits excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites. CLW 18:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. About one routine 14-years-old pop music tape!?!? Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non notable. Google provides no hits at all, except for Wikipedia results. Jayden54 18:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anthony Appleyard.
    Danny Lilithborne 20:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:42Z

Chortle

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

nn website, no assertion of notability, fails

WP:WEB, alexa of 111,330 Booshakla 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per Anthony Appleyard. It's mere advertising, and its hard to see that it could become anything else. ArtVandelay13 14:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know I'm the one who mentioned the non-notable status of Chortle in discussing the deletion of the Tumbleweed Awards page, but the problem is with the policy that requires us to defer to mainstream media for notability. If this goes on we'll start losing huge chunks of our online culture and, while it may be fuelled by press releases and froth, Chortle is an important part of the British online comedy landscape. Deleting it would be a mistake--Mr. Analytical 15:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PUT YOUR HANDS UP FOR SOTCAAA, THEY LOVE THIS VINDICTIVENESS 86.31.48.65 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; appears perfectly notable in a Brit context. Ford MF 21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:41Z

The Shizz

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

nn forum, deals with nn bands, fails

WP:WEB, spammy, last afd was bombarded by forum members, rendering a no consensus. Alexa is a pitiful 5,340,834 Booshakla 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Nowhere on
WP:WEB does it say "This criterion includes published works in all forms, except for regional alternative newsletters". The Phoenix New Times is both reliable and verifiable
. The article references those articles. Therefore, the article passes.
I should also mention that notability of bands, spam, and Alexa are not criteria of AfD for
WP:WEB
. I know that you're trying to clean up Wikipedia, but mentioning them only serves to confuse the issue.
As for my participation in this AfD, you can look at my contributions and see that I am a consistent editor here and have been so long before the original AfD. This article happens to be on my watch list, and I would participate in the AfD for any of those articles. Besides,
Wyatt Riot 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, posting on that site creates a pretty strong bias which (as afd procedure goes) will affect how much weight your opinion has when the nomination is closed. And the Phoenix New Times is not a notable source at all, it's just a minor regional publication. WP:WEB says that this site/message board is not notable. And that's just how it goes, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. Booshakla 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that posting on the site might show evidence of
    WP:COI for the author of the article, but it seems unfair to discount someone's opinion in an AFD because of their connection with the subject. That just seems like an ad hominem attack, rather than actually dealing with the logical content of their arguments. Charlie 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
But it does say in afd etiquette: "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." And the above user and showing WP:WEB in an embarrassing level, that's like saying your website got published in a high school newspaper and a zine, and that meets WP:WEB, that isn't true, this page is spammy, has a pitiful alexa rating, and it needs to go. Booshakla 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't disagree. Even if you consider the Phoenix New Times a notable, independent source per
    WP:WEB, only one of the articles is about The Shizz, the other only mentions it, and then there is not another source. Just wanted to make sure that discussion stayed on topic. Charlie 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to MapleStory#Criticism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:39Z

MapleStory game issues

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

most of the things the article talk about can't be understood if u didn't played the game before. also there are no sources at all. and also most of the parts are written in non-encyclopedia format. KaiFei 18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom KaiFei 18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - possible bad-faith nomination, as the only previous edits by the editor have been page move vandalism of a featured article. --- RockMFR 18:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what do u mean move vandalism, whatever i just group it under animal
  • Delete. Bad faith doesn't change the fact that it's unsourced, OR, ugliness. -Amarkov blahedits 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment well said bro KaiFei 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into MapleStory. It can be cleaned up there. --- RockMFR 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. As one of the editors of MapleStory, I used to think this page was a good idea. However, now, it's become too bloated with information that is really too unnecessary for Wikipedia to know. Merge "important" information into the Criticism section of MapleStory. Kalani [talk] 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since none of the issues are
    sourced; if someone can come up with some sources on any of these issues, then they can be merged into the main article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete 10 out of 10 of these issues are generic issues all MMOs have to deal with (scamming glitches etc). Nifboy 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Summarize merge - I had initially created this page since so much junk was getting put on the main MapleStory page. Maybe one paragraph needs to be added to the main page to summarize the main points, but the rest is just junk. Except for the number of hack users, most of the issues really aren't that much of a problem. -- Prod-You 02:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into criticisms section in main article. ← ANAS Talk? 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main article and do a complete rewrite of the alleged criticisms. This article rambles, repeats and talks of common MMORPG scams that are hardly unique to MapleStory (Yeah, people know how to rip people off, but is there anything unique about it? "Hey, Wikipedia has a severe bug! You can hit Alt+F4 (⌘W on Mac) to get admin priviledges!" is the oldest trick in the book!) People who cry lack of sources are, in my opinion, understating the problem: This is not well researched anyway (random collection of Stuff without clear view of the big picture), and it's more like a collection of random anecdotes that may or may not be relevant, real, or even interesting. I usually don't think content issues warrant deletion, but this material doesn't appear to be salvageable - it can be left as a redirect though. For now, I believe MapleStory#Criticism is sufficient and beautifully succinct. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:48Z

SWINDLE - San Diego Punk Bank, 1994-2004

SWINDLE - San Diego Punk Bank, 1994-2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but does assert local notability. May not meet criteria of

Donald Albury 19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:50Z

City Centre Church

City Centre Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod contested by anonymous without explanation, no assertion of notability in the article.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Redirects should be nominated for deletion at

J Di talk 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ghost Host

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

This page serves no real purpose on Wikipedia. Bowsy 19:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:38Z

First Presbyterian Church (Edmonton)

First Presbyterian Church (Edmonton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed becase the church is 125 years old; but a real notability proof was not given; therefore the procedural AfD, I vote weak delete.Ioannes Pragensis 19:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Two sources added, I take back the nomination. KEEP.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim to notability is made outside of the age, which is probably common in many towns around the world with long-established communities. It's not a notable figure by itself. 206.213.209.31 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak keep While there are now independent sources, I do question if the church is notable or not. However, it is now verifiable, so I think it's worthy of keeping for now. --Адам Райли Talk 07:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability. Being old does not make something notable. Compare with my hometown church: Mt. Sinai Congregational Church. From the Mount Sinai, New York article: "In 1789, nine worshipers established the Congregational Church using the old church building as a place to worship. In 1807 a new building was erected and continues to be used as the Mt. Sinai Congregational Church." That's a really old church, but otherwise completely unremarkable, and earns no mention outside of the main article about the town. Charlie 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per 2 refs added. Edison 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now improved to show notability. The best outcome of an AFD is an improved article.
    GRBerry 04:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

► 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Makoto Uchida

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

Coverted from speedy deletion, it does assert notability (I think lead creative developer on several notable games counts). However, the only source on the talk page which is not directory-style information is an interview. There are no sources in the article itself. No reliable sources in the first five pages of google hits (and he shares his name with another professor). Neutral. ColourBurst 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article belongs in the database for obvious reasons. The individual the article is about is notable and does certainly exist. The fact that it needs work does not mean that it should be deleted. The subject of the article is the individual who is given credit for concieving several Sega Arcade games such as Altered Beast and Golden Axe. Also please look at the links provided in the discussion page. There is plenty of information about the individual there. Majestic Lizard 04:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Majestic Lizard 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weak article in need of improvement, but notable. Ford MF 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did some research and I'm not convinced that Makoto Uchida who did the sound on anime is the same Makoto Uchida that designed games. We need someone to cite some concrete sources for the keeps. --Kunzite 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that the guy, that we know for certain designed half a dozen arcade games sold all over the world, should not be part of this entry because the article may incorrectly attribute some minor sound sampling on anime movies to him? That's great that you did research. But rather than just exclaiming that you have done research, and therefor you believe you are right, it would really be better if you actually shared the research and then explained why you think you are right. The references to anime movies can be deleted without the entire article being deleted. There is no doubt that Uchida conceived top grossing Sega arcade games.
There are concrete sources in the discussion page in regard to the man's history with Sega. Uchida is well known to former and current employees of Sega. He is not exactly a phantom. He deserves his credit for his creations. Just because he is not famous in the west does not mean he doesn't have encyclopedic significance. Majestic Lizard 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO" video game field, and I'll change my recommendation. --Kunzite 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Its quite obvious to anyone reads what I have expressed here that I am being perfectly polite and simply trying to advocate a simple position in regard to this entry.
Try and realize that when people disagree and explain their position, it is not a personal attack against any individual person expressing a view. It is also a mistake to suggest that someone is being provoked or attacked when someone else merely asks them to demonstrate the research that was claimed to have been made.
No one was lectured on a "systematic bias". A lecture is generally composed of more than one sentence. I explained why I did not agree that this entry should be deleted. This will be obvious to anyone who reads what I wrote.
It is very obvious that the Makoto Uchida the article is about is the Sega game programmer who designed the arcade games Golden Axe and Altered Beast, as well as many others. The fact that 'there are many Makoto Uchida's out there' is no more an adequate reason to delete this article than if I was to say George Bush's article should be deleted because there are many George Bushes.
I suggested that that people peruse the discussion page and I'm not too sure many persons paying attention to this little discussion have done so. Uchida already has been part of the video game field for at least 18 years.
I just don't think it should be deleted. I think it should be improved. I'm also not even sure how to link sources to articles as I have usually just made data corrections to existing ones. Majestic Lizard 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:51Z

Complexity Gaming

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

Non-notable gaming clan. Search results on Google turn up less than a dozen. No references. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely non notable gaming team with no press coverage or anything else Jayden54 21:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the source they provide (A NewEgg LAN party) is enough, for a gaming clan. I'd need to see something more than that. User:Logical2uTalk 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:51Z

Bayside Community Church

Bayside Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Non notable church. --Адам Райли Talk 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to satisfy
    User:Radiant. Needs multiple independent sources. Edison 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - as the church seems to be fairly notable, the article just has no independent sources to confirm this. Also, note that
    WP:CHURCH has been rejected for lack of consensus. Charlie 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
While WP:CHURCH no longer exists, WP:CONG does. --Адам Райли Talk 09:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It sounds notable - but I can't find any independent publications about them.
    GRBerry 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

► 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of pre-made characters in The Sims

List of pre-made characters in The Sims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game walkthrough guide. This is just a list of non-notable characters in an otherwise-notable game. Nothing in the article asserts the notability of even a single character, let alone the hundreds mentioned. Furthermore, the article has been tagged as OR and unsourced for months yet has never been fixed. Tarinth 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims

NOTE: Please do not remove the AfD notice on the page. User 148.243.59.4 previously removed the notice without any discussion.

  • Delete as nom. Tarinth 11:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable--Slogankid 21:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above is a non-argument. I do not question that The Sims is notable (it is obvious based on a large number of reviews, media coverage, and so forth), but a laundry list of characters within it is not. None of these characters have been the focus of any particular media coverage. The content is just fancruft. Furthermore, the article has been tagged as OR and unsourced for months without any corrections.Tarinth 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment This is notable because it gives the background and history of the characters in the game. It is definitely of interest to those who play the game, and it's hardly a "list" - there is a lot of information in there. I've played the game for years, and it's got a lot of background info in there that I didn't know about, although I will definitely agree that citing sources would be most helpful.


But I digress. Maybe we should link to the other wiki. That place is currently linking here. --Silent Wind of Doom 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:37Z

The Swifts

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

non-notable band, which, according to the article, never signed to a music label and only got a few briefs plays on regional radio. Sourced to myspace and web forums. Geoffrey Spear 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An ex-Daily Sport columnist whose lyrics are described as "drug induced gibberish"... Yeah, that Manchester nu-indie scene, it's definitely giving us a new generation of Beethovens, ain't it ;-) Tubezone 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:36Z

Denton Bible Church

Denton Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Non notable. No references other than to Church websites. Адам Райли Talk 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:35Z

Emmanuel Church

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

DeleteNon-notable church founded in 2006 with no reputable sources. Адам Райли Talk 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep but remove the material about the church in England to a separate article. The article started with a church in Massachusetts. Then on Nov 7 someone added a church in England unrelated the the original subject, which happened to have the same name of "Emmanuel," which is likely shared by thousands of other churches. As for the Massachusetts church, it has a "Leslie Lindsey Memorial Chapel," which is a memorial to a Lusitania victim, and which may be architecturally notable.page 93 If the architectural notability can be confirmed by independent sources in addition to the cuurch and the guidebook, it should be a keeper. As for the church in England it should be judged separately for its own article if any. The Massachusetts Church was founded in 1860, not 2006.Edison 20:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the nn church and left the significant one. It is well known that the nominator does not read the articles he nominates for deletion as soon as they have "church" in the title :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comment about the nominator is disingenous at best, and in bad faith at worst. He obviously has read the article, as he correctly notes that the article contains no reputable sources. Charlie 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he had read it he would have noticed that there were two churches. Edison 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Slowly, Charlie, slowly, the church was founded in 1860 and it was in the article in the time of nomination. During his crusade against "small non notable churches", the nominator nominated even Burnt Church First Nation, a clearly notable band. Read the AfD archives before attacking me, please.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've said in the past Burnt Church First Nation was a pure mistake, and I changed my vote to speedy keep immediately after realising this. I'm sorry, but a church where the only source is the church website, and there is not one thing about the notability of the church...I feel that is to be deleted. I'm going to say this again (as I have several times in the past)...I'm not on a crusade as you put it. I feel these churches (which all but one were found from [Category:Church stubs]] are not notable or verifiable enough for a Wikipedia article. This has absolutely nothing to do with my own religious views (as you can see I left several churches that I felt were notable/verifiable), and I would appreciate if you stopped making it seem that way. Thank you. --Адам Райли Talk 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And was it also a mistake when you later nominated
St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, a cathedral dating back to 1112? When you caused trainwreck of a mass deletion and wasted lots of our time? I can easily tolerate a mistake, but not incorrigibility and dishonesty. Please rethink once more your behavior.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
[65] is what the church had when I nominated it for deletion. It made absolutely no reference of it going back to 1112. I fail to see how I was dishonest in any way whatsoever. --Адам Райли Talk 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly written there that it is both a Cathedral and a Basilica. Only few churches in Asia have both these distinctions, and any single of these distinctions makes a church clearly notable. If you do not undestand religion, then please do not touch articles about religion and edit articles about things which you know better. Is this advice hard to understand? Shall I repeat it ten times to you? --Ioannes Pragensis 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done dealing with your crap. I refuse to argue with you on this issue any longer. --Адам Райли Talk 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and wish you a successfull New Year.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Edison. Possible move to Emmanuel Church, Boston. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless an independent source can be found to assert notability, not to mention
    verifiability of the information. Charlie 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Edison. Pastordavid 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While checking duplicate names in the National Register of Historic Places database, I found 23 different churches that have the name "Emmanuel Church" or some variation, such as "Emmanuel Episcopal Church". The one in Massachusetts isn't one, but seeing as it was founded in 1860, I think there's enough history to keep it. Regardless, some disambiguation linking is probably in order here. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept move to Emmanuel Church (Massachusetts). This page really needs to be a dab. Vegaswikian 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:32Z

Dave McClain (drummer)

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

Thiis person seems to fail

T|C) 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:32Z

Evangelical Catholic Church

Evangelical Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable and no verifiable sources other than an AOL homepage. Адам Райли Talk 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a simple church building. It is clear from the article that it is a religious denomination. I suspect the fact it is incorporated in Arizona (as stated in the article) means the societies and charities register of Arizona would have a record of this intitution's existence. Agent 86 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable because it's a denomination. (Small and eccentric, yes. But a denom nontheless.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but... there need to be independent sources cited! I could have made the aol page, and written this article, entirely myself. Charlie 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a denomination, not a local congregation. Pastordavid 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Catholicism... there does not seem to be evidence of its notability as a subgroup.--Buridan 04:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is the first AFD.
  • Keep because it is a denomination and because of the sources that Uncle G found in the first AFD.
    GRBerry 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per PastorDavid.. This is a denomination.Edison 04:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Small, but notability established by 3rd party interest. This should not be redirected to either Catholicism or Lutheranism. Gimmetrow 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:31Z

Evangelical Church of the Deaf

Evangelical Church of the Deaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable with no verifiable sources. Адам Райли Talk 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are indeed verifiable sources, including the Toronto phone book if it comes down to that. However, the United Church includes this church on its website, as part of its deaf ministries information.[66] The unique nature of this congreation provides the subject with encyclopedic value. If not, change the title to deaf ministries (or something similar) and expand the article to include information on the deaf ministry movement. Agent 86 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I understand what you're saying, 86. But it still appears to be a NN local church. Deaf congregations in my own denomination would be similarly unnotable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless independent sources can be turned up that assert notability. Charlie 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Had one looked at the talk page of this site, they would have seen a discussion going about finding the resources. I suppose that the long wait until after Christmas was just intolerable. Here is a link to the info about the pastor of the church. Here is a link to a news story by Toronto Star about the congregation, filtered through the International Disability Rights News Service. Here is a website about the historic Toronto home that housed the church for almost 50 years. I realize that I should use this info to update the article - but somehow I just don't have time right now. Perhaps the mere presence of the info is enough to assert notability. Pastordavid 23:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PastorDavid. A very specialized and innovative ministry. More worthy of an article than a character in a video game or about 50% of the other articles on Wikipedia. Edison 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PastorDavid. - Lex 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:30Z

Evangelical Free Church of Naperville

Evangelical Free Church of Naperville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Delete non notable with no verifiable references other than a city council transcript approving a zoning variance. Адам Райли Talk 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources can be turned up that assert notability. Charlie 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm the main (well, only) creator for this article and should note that it's unlikely that any further sources will be found. It's fairly large, but that's not that great a selling point as we all know. It's pretty much only selling point for notability will be it's record-setting attendance for the local city council, which I can fully attest to its truth, but cannot find a source. I understand notability guidelines and only created the article after seeing other churchs' had entries with even less notability. Can I assume that if I can find an eventual source for the record, I may recreate the article? And I know its a longshot, but would a sermon recounting the record count? --YbborT 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Ybbor, and yes please feel free to re-create an article on the church if you find multiple independent sources to show its notability. Edison 05:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:30Z

Faith! Christian Church

Faith! Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable, non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:28Z

Family Christian Center

Family Christian Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable, non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been in existence for 4 months. How much time did you want? --Адам Райли Talk 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes. Edison 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 months is actually not very much time, in the broad scheme of things. Even were it not, Ioannes has provided a verifiable assertion of notability. Pastordavid 16:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:28Z

Forge Road Bible Chapel

Forge Road Bible Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Delete non notable, non verifiable. This is the second time it was proposed for deletion Адам Райли Talk 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Long established church, but did not find independent sources for establishment of notability. Edison 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fledgeling 20:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since I go there (verifiable), I can try to scrounge up some more info, such as the international contributions, as per
    unsigned comment was added by AdmiralMemo (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 07:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:27Z

Garywood Assembly of God

Garywood Assembly of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable, non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks like a huge church with a rich tradition. Nomination reasons are rather exxagerated.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes. Pastordavid 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per I.P. Edison 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:26Z

Holy Name Church

Holy Name Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deletenon notable, non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:26Z

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable, non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, probably rather big church (3 priests); hard to tell whether notable or not in this stubby form. The deletion reasons are not supported by any evidence, too. If in doubt, keep.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN local church -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes. Edison 05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There is nothing in the article that asserts notability. Also note that based on the categories used, this article is about the building and there is nothing in the article about the building so there is no reason to keep. Vegaswikian 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:25Z

Jubilee Christian Church

Jubilee Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, bishop's church and huge. Deletion reasons are weak because the nominator surely did not try to verify the claims.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sheer volume of nominations from among churches -- so soon after the train wreck of the Bayside Church AfD - makes it hard to assume that these are in good faith. Here is a Boston Globe article that describes Jubilee's minister of music as a "veteran Gospel singer/song-writer." Here is an article from Yahoo! about the innovative faith-based credit union (1st of its type in Boston, one of the 1st in the county) which Jubilee is taking part in. Imagine, I found all this in under 5 minutes with one search. 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Pastordavid 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see that those are all in the article showing it is notable. --Адам Райли Talk 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes and preceding anon. editor. Edison 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:24Z

Leeds Reformed Baptist Church

Leeds Reformed Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable, nonverifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete despite being verifiable, because nothing in the article indicates anything encyclopedic (or notable) about this church. Agent 86 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a small church with no broader significance.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN local church -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fine little local church, not encyclopedia due to lack of independent sources. Edison 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:24Z

Neen art

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

Okay, nomination rewritten, see history for the old, angry one.


  • nonsense and even if you read it carefully, it does not provide any context
  • non-notable artists, not even if we consider neen notable
  • they are writing their own bios on wikipedia (users Angeloplessas, Angelo Plessas, Dona tracy, etc; articles Angelo Plessas, Larry Carlson)
  • far from encyclopedic, despite those sources; the article does not reflect anything from them, so please don't say "But there are sourceeeeeees..."


  • neen is based on a hoax
  • neen is basically a buzzword with no meaningful art behind it, it is "a still undefined generation of visual artists"
  • neen, according to the article, "uses or abuses technology", it is a good magical thingy that use computer screens and domains and such, produces art that is "transformative and magical"
  • neen is, according to Wired, a collection of animations and screenshots stolen from video games
  • neen is, according to Salon, a virtual exhibition - we got TONS of those on the net, with better quality works!
  • neen is, in reality, a bunch of poorly made flash animations.
  • neen basically consist of some men with an enormous appetite for attention (autobio, anyone?); Wikipedia is not the place to achieve this
  • neensters are speaking bold about open source and filesharing, but they arguing over "stolen techniques"


If the article on LegendaryFrog / Joseph Blanchette was deleted because the media doesn't give a shit about him, despite the >20 million views of his works and his influence on the flash scene, then THIS ARTICLE MUST DEFINITELY GO. Frigo 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Procedural Query Why is Miltos Manetas tagged as an article for deletion discussion but with the tag linked to this discussion? Bwithh 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article for
    extremely uncomfortable with allowing a bad nomination to grant any form of grace period to an article when an appropriate nomination was possible. Only problems seem to lie down that path. Serpent's Choice 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Much better now that nom is rewritten. Delete per nom. Fledgeling 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's okay and proper for the Art to defy explanation. Regrettably, nebulous topics make lousy articles. Art movements are also difficult things to write articles about; Art movement is as important as its works, and if the works are virtually unknown, well... Two news articles, also, don't prove a thing about the thing's practical notability. Especially if it's Wired (Just call them that you spent $7.50 to found an art movement online, and you get the front page). Manetas may be notable, not sure about the movement. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:22Z

The New Pearl Harbor

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

Spam promotional advertising of a fairly well selling conspiracy theory book...however, Wikipedia is not in the business of helping others further their attempts to profit...so Wikipedia is not a Soapbox applies here.--MONGO 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you're arguing for the deletion of like, 60% of Wikipedia? I'm a deletionist myself, but I think that I'm like most deletionists in that we still very much appreciate the expanded scope of Wikipedia (we just have a tighter notions of legitimate limits) Bwithh 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Cleanup and rebalance for POV if necessary. User:MONGO nomination argues only that this article is spam or soapboxing - but the article does not come across like this. In any case, the book has already sold 100,000+ copies in the US and has been discussed in a lengthy Washington Post Sept 2006 article[69] which identifies the book's author as a leading figure in the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement. The same article cites a poll which suggests that over a third of the US public suspect US government involvement in the attacks. Even if such ideas of the book are totally nonsensical, there's clearly sufficient notability for an article here Bwithh 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see this August 2005 interview with Griffin in the Los Angeles Times magazine:[70] Bwithh 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup I would also note that this book was included in the official selection of 99 books made available to all members of the
    National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States aka the 9/11 Commission[71] Bwithh 21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Bwithh's arguments, again. Well done. — coelacan talk — 03:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps merge all these self-promotional books into one article on books published by proiminent Truthers. We don't need to hear the same bollocks over and over again. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The author is a highly respected academic, while the book itself has been subject to numerous reviews in mainstream publications and by other academics. Some of these are quoted here. It also received a three-page full-colour treatment in the Daily Mail of June 25 2004 in which the writer, Sue Reid, took Griffin's allegations very seriously. That article can be found at any public library that stores British mainstream newspapers. There are other reviews in local newspapers in the US and elsewhere that are too numerous to mention.

Howard Zinn, the renowned historian of U.S. history has said of it [72]:

David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event.

If the article is poorly written then it should be fixed. However this AfD proposal is an appalling waste of time and cannot be justified by any means. Ireneshusband 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. --Tsunami Butler 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above and consider sanctions on POV pushers advocating it's deletion based on what other editors have proven to be false arguments. If you don't like a subject, or disagree with it, it doesn't get deleted, does it? If it's notable, it stays. And for comments to merge and condense them... why? We going to do the same with books on religion, and fork all the Jesus books off into one article? We don't need to hear that bollocks over and over again, either, per
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Moscatanix 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:20Z

Metropolitan Community Church of New York

Metropolitan Community Church of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete non notable, non verifiable. The fact that it reaches out to the GLBT community isn't notable, as there are several other churches that do that (UCC, UU, etc) Адам Райли Talk 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a possible mergeinto Metropolitan Community Church. --Адам Райли Talk 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't mention anything about media coverage. The notability has not been established anywhere in the article. --Адам Райли Talk 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The MCC exists in to minister to the GLBT community - the best-known such denomination in the US (at least). -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The religious denomination itself has an article (Metropolitan Community Church); however, it may be that an individual church within the denomination is not encyclopedic. I fail to see how this particular church is "non verifiable" (it does not seem incapable of verification), but I do see how the article fails to assert notability or encyclopedic value. On that, I'll remain neutral on this AfD for now. Agent 86 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ioannes Pragensis; --Mhking 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes. Edison 05:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Otto4711 05:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

► 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Metropolitan Community Church of North London

Metropolitan Community Church of North London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)
There is already a Metropolitan Community Church. I would support a possible merge into that article. --Адам Райли Talk 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only a single primary source cited, no indicator of notability. Might fall under speedy A7 as no assertion of notability. Seraphimblade 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I did not found any significant media coverage, otherwise non notable.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination --Mhking 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it along with

Metropolitan Community Churches in London. Otto4711 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:19Z

Morden Alliance Church

Morden Alliance Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Delete non notable, non verifiable per

WP:CHURCH Адам Райли Talk 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus).

talk | contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mt. Olive Church of God

Mt. Olive Church of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete non notable, non verifiable. Адам Райли Talk 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see every recording studio in North America that has produced an album being notable for Wikipedia articles, either. --!!!! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Adam Riley (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
Comment But this is a major-label band. FULLY PRODUCING the band's first music video is something notable. If this was an argument about keeping or deleting the organization who produced, for example, Green Day's first music video, or the Rolling Stones' first music video, everyone would be saying 'Keep it! It's part of the band's history!' If Everlife was an indie band that only a handful of people have heard of, it would be different. But they're not. Keep it. Keeponplayin27 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete No notability asserted ~ trialsanderrors 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)

MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Delete non notable non verifiable Адам Райли Talk 20:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --Mhking 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete contra nomination --User:DBD22 23 December 2006 (UTC)- article should be revised and expanded. This Church is a historical site located in the historic centre of the second largest city in Ontario. The congregation was organized on August 29, 1854 - before the founding of the Government of Canada in Ottawa in 1867. The congregation maintains a historical exhibit of artifacts, pictures and mementos of the past. This article could be reworked in a very interesting and informative way - encompasing the history of Southern Ontario and the role played by the this congregation and the witness of faith in Early Canada. At some time, I might be interested in doing this revision, or assisting in some way.

Possible sources (all located in the Hamilton City Library) might include:

  • Bailey, T. Melville et al

The Presbytery of Hamilton: 1836-1967 [R285.271352 PRE ESC] (and the 1990 sequel, Wee Kirks and Statly Steeples)

  • Barclay, William

A Century of Beginnings. 1841-1941 Toronto: Presbyterian Publications, [1941] [R285.2713 C333b CESH]

  • Ketchen, Beverly

A Brief and Fragmentary History of MacNab Street Presbyterian Church, Hamilton. 1854-1954 [1954] [R285 M231br CESH]

Bacl-presby 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This has the possibility of being notable enough as per [User:DBD22]]'s notations - but they need to be included in the article. Right now it's just a list of "Ministers" - giving absolutely no indication of notability.
    SkierRMH 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11: The Big Lie

9/11: The Big Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Spam promotional advertising of a fairly well selling conspiracy theory book...however, Wikipedia is not in the business of helping others further their attempts to profit...so Wikipedia is not a Soapbox applies here--MONGO 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for Mongo I'm not following you. Which editors do you contend are making a profit? Did the author or publisher edit the article? Is there one of those Amazon links where 5% goes to the referrer? To claim that editors have a profit motive is a serious allegation and the opposite of AGF. What do you base it on? I'm sure you would never smear and besmirch your fellow editors without concrete proof. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I not once said any editor was trying to make a buck, I stated that the article is spam advertising...don't go twisting things around.--MONGO 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Do you not know what the words "spam" and "advertising" mean? If no one involved in the article is trying to sell anything to make money, then by definition the article is not advertising. Geoffrey Spear 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am sure I do know what they mean...Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. If you have no better way to communicate without insulting me, then please read
    our civility policy.--MONGO 11:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment Thank you, although I'm not sure MONGO will agree with such simple logic. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVAMP I have totally revamped the article now. To the delete !voters - note how I've focussed on the 1)notability/popularity and 2)significant criticism. I've left out doing the synopsis as I haven't read the book. The State Department rebuttal link may be a place to use to identify the key claims (but we shouldn't turn the synopsis into just a repetition/endorsement of the official rebuttal. To the !keep voters: Yes, I've taken out virtually everything from the original article. Total revamp was necessary, I think, otherwise a line by line revision of the old version would be more time-consuming and mired in searching/wrangling over sources and interpretations. If there are nuggets that are salvageable (i.e. they must be NPOV and clearly solidly sourced) then, well, you can retrieve them in the article history and pop them somewhere reasonable in the new version Bwithh 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. actually an ISBN isn't even a guarantee that a book exists Bwithh 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN is assigned by the publisher of a book for tracking and ordering purposes. That goes against your assertion, Bwithh. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement profiteering Tbeatty 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Vanispamcruftisement. Eusebeus 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you have a true problem with the article, try a clean-up tag instead of deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm finding the claims that this article should be summarily deleted as "vanispamcruft" totally bizarre. This article needs a substantial criticism section and general rebalancing, but that's no reason for deletion. I don't know the latest cumulative sales figures for this book, but Time magazine reported in May 2002 that this book was no.1 in France's best-seller list for six of the seven weeks after its launch"[78]. It has been published in 28 languages[79] and has received worldwide press attention and has been specifically addressed in US Department of Defense press conferences[80]. This article as it is has POV problems and needs a good scrubbing, but why on earth do people think this book needs Wikipedia to sell itself or as a soapbox? Clearly there's a valid encyclopedia article topic here - the book's ideas may be totally ridiculous but its notability in public discourse has been well established. Bwithh 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm considering a stubification/revamp. That seems to be a most useful way of going about this Bwithh 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVAMP I have totally revamped the article now. To the delete !voters - note how I've focussed on the 1)notability/popularity and 2)significant criticism. I've left out doing the synopsis as I haven't read the book. The State Department rebuttal link may be a place to use to identify the key claims (but we shouldn't turn the synopsis into just a repetition/endorsement of the official rebuttal. To the !keep voters: Yes, I've taken out virtually everything from the original article. Total revamp was necessary, I think, otherwise a line by line revision of the old version would be more time-consuming and mired in searching/wrangling over sources and interpretations. If there are nuggets that are salvageable (i.e. they must be NPOV and clearly solidly sourced) then, well, you can retrieve them in the article history and pop them somewhere reasonable in the new versionBwithh 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion about the NPOV balance of the article. Others will disagree. In any case, that's not an argument for deletion. Bwithh 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... note that I labeled my note as a "comment"; I'm not arguing for or against deletion. Also, I did not question the word "journalist", just that in my first read of the article, the introduction does not give a sense of the issues raised concerning the book, which are key reasons used in asserting its notability above, e.g. U.S. Government response, NYT mention, book written to refute it, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't put the NYTimes mention in the intro, as from the abstract link, as its seems to be a source of secondary reporting here. I'll add a bit about criticism in the French media and by the US govt in the intro though. Bwithh 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the
Washington Times[85] all straightforwardly call Meyssan a journalist (the the Washington Times, while asserting his ideas are "loony", still calls Meyssan a "respected French journalist". These sources are from both sides of the Atlantic and represent centre/centre-left sources as well as US mainstream right-wing sources. Bwithh 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
An early version of my revamp of the article stated that the book was highly controversial and criticized in the intro - I took that out as a NPOV tweak, but I'm happy to tweak it back Bwithh 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rebalanced the lead after consultation with ERcheck Bwithh 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just because it's a product doesn't make it commercial spam. Should we delete iPod, too? —Trevyn 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although I disagree in labelling this article “spam”, I do think that as a whole it is in desperate need of a rewrite in order to increase the quality of the article. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 17:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • 'Keep Per above. Notable in France, who is a notable country, with notable coverage of the book. I don't get the commercial/spam aspect by nom which is not clearly defined. How's it spam? By that logic all articles on books which aren't already on the New York Times bestsellers list are spam. Its almost like an ad hominem nomination...? Moscatanix 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a description of a best selling book. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A garbage book but unfortunately notable. Lawyer2b 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above by Raymond Arritt, Torinir, Umeboshi, and Bwithh. Nominator needs to stand in the corner for fifteen minutes, dessert and snacking privilages are revoked for two nights. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. New references and sourcing satisfy my original concerns. I'm withdrawing this AfD. alphachimp 21:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Pickle

This non-notable podcasting directory and forum site fails

verifiable. Alphachimp 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Delete - doesn't appear very notable, and all I could find was a small mention in the Sun Herald but nothing noteworthy Jayden54 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my vote to 'Weak Delete' now that I know of the Time link. It's still only one small mention in a huge list, so I'm not entirely convinced that makes it notable enough, but I'll be keeping an eye on the article and this discussion to see if anything changes. Jayden54 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Voted by Time as one of the "Cool Sites" of 2006. It is one of the largest and most important podcast directories. It's also tied into the Scott Sigler page. Darrik2 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not quite sure about the Time link, but the Scott Sigler tie in to Wikipedia really isn't sufficient to establish notability. Of particular concern about this article is the fact that it lacks verifiable, reliable, published sourcing. Alphachimp 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been linked by the Podcast Pickle Forums. Alphachimp 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup: Time is plenty notable.--
    Ac1983fan 20:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep There are references and there are references: meaning, not all references are the same. Time is one of the three or four most important print publications in the world. In my view, a citation as one of the "coolest" sites by Time Magazine is more than enough, in itself, to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm going to do a little cleanup now.PaulLev 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:19Z

The CIA and September 11 (book)

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

Spam promotional advertising for a conspiracy theory book...Wikipedia is not in the business of helping others further their attempts to profit...so Wikipedia is not a Soapbox applies here--MONGO 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Googling "Die CIA und der 11. September" - that returns 14,100 Google hits. If a book is notable in one language, it is notable in all languages. Incidentally, there seems to be a great deal of information about this book in the German language Wikipedia ([86]), which someone really ought to translate. --Hyperbole 08:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I - and what I had in mind was User:bov's opinion that the book is promoting hoaxes and therefore there should be no article about it on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether the book's contents are agreeable or benign, its still a bestseller. And you just addressed one argument you thought I was making, so that's cherry-picking Bwithh 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not self published. That's notable enough for me. Just H 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep book by a former-German cabinet minister discussed in the Daily Telegraph as sparking anti-Americanism; that all points to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable book. Edison 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability criteria for books, with a number 3 on the Der Spiegel NFB list. Complaints about the quality of the article would be better served with clean-up tags and action on the discussion page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, prior discussion can be found here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that simply writing about the book (and specifically including criticism of the book) is evidence of promotion of the book?. This book was written by a former German cabinet minister and was a bestseller published by a reputable publishing house. The book's success led to a 2,000 word article about it on the front page of the
    Wall Street Journal
     - does that mean the WSJ is promoting Anti-American propaganda too?

Here's an excerpt from the copy in the Factiva news database:

Rumor Mill: Conspiracy Theories About Sept. 11 Get Hearing in Germany --- Distrust of U.S. Fuels Stories About Source of Attacks; Videos, Hot-Selling Books --- Ex-Cabinet Minister's Tale

By Ian Johnson

2014 words

29 September 2003

The Wall Street Journal

A1

English

(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

MUNICH, Germany -- Andreas von Bulow's book has climbed the German bestseller list, his lectures are jammed and, after two years of mounting frustration, his ideas are gaining traction.

His thesis: The U.S. government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a tentative theory, he admits, based mostly on his doubt that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group launched the attacks. "That's something that is simply 99% false," he said at a reading of his book on the second anniversary of the attacks.

A crackpot? A conspiracy theorist who believes that Elvis lives and the CIA murdered Kennedy? Not exactly. Mr. von Bulow, 66 years old, is a former German cabinet minister, a trim, silver-haired man whose book comes from one of the country's most prestigious publishing houses and who lectures at well-known public institutions. He's not alone: In recent months, Germany's leading broadcaster, ARD, ran a purported documentary making similar claims, while half a dozen other German authors have published like-minded books.

(end excerpt)

Bwithh 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My gut feeling is that the hypothesis is untrue, but we are judging notability, not truth, Edison 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nobody seems to be disputing the fact that this book is notable, verifiable, and passes
    WP:BK. If you think the article is POV, the appropriate reaction is to edit it - not to nominate it for deletion. --Hyperbole 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Clearly notable. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep part of the User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard attack page, which is also up for deletion right now. Just because a book has a goofy theory, does not automatically mean is should be perged from wikipedia.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the chap wrote some sensationalist drivel, there was a bit of to-do in the press afterwards, and now no-one cares other than a certain lunatic fringe. This article serves no purpose that Google doesn't. Incidentally, one of the `keepers' above said the German encyclopaedia has lots of information on it. It doesn't — the book is given a section in the article on its author, and doesn't have a separate article. I think that's a lovely idea. And, mirabile dictu, the article on the author already has a section on the book! Junglecat makes many good points, as well. Rosenkreuz 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep book is notable in that it was published by Andreas von Bülow, a former German SPD cabinet member, and the press coverage it has recieved.--Jersey Devil 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per it's inclusion in the German wiki and per above. Ours18 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Bwithh's arguments. — coelacan talk — 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another unjustified and timewasting VfD proposal. Ireneshusband 07:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was

MergedGeni 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System Crash (TV series)

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

Delete this page, so that

WikiProject Television) 21:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:17Z

The GUIs

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

I'm not going to bother trying prod on this one, since the article creator has twice removed the {{music-importance}} and {{unreferenced}} tags. I find no evidence of this band even existing, see Google results for GUIs and Kabialis. [87] Delete as

unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:17Z

Aaron Fotheringham

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

Non Notable. Does smart tricks in his wheelchair, but apart from that your average Joe. Jcuk 21:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nomination rather understates this person's abilities and the encyclopedic value of the article. While not an overwhelming number of ghits, the ones that do come up provide some notability (in particular, disability websites seem to have an interest in telling this person's story). There is even non-trivial media coverage[88][89] of this person. Agent 86 22:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he has been the subject of print media articles (one of them is linked in the entry). However, it may require cleanup. Charlie 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Am actually fairly ambivalent about the article, just want to get concensus on it. However, as regards the above comment, I have also been the subject of print media articles, but I don't honestly believe that confers notability upon me. Jcuk 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I appreciate your view, and find myself in a similar (non-notable) situation,
      WP:BIO, the subject is notable enough for WP. Charlie 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate this later, with proper reliable sources, they can, but it doesn't pass

WP:V in its current state. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bookscout

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

Unsourced; prod removed with a request to list. Bringing it here. Hornplease 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by

Martinp23 as "Nonsense page". Agent 86 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Church of the Kitten

Church of the Kitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod disputed without explanation by article author. Googling for "church of the kitten", quotes included, produces 0 hits. Likely hoax, entirely non-notable if it isn't. Seraphimblade 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G1. Patent nonsense. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, hoax.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

RMIT University. —Quarl (talk
) 2006-12-27 09:14Z

Rmit publishing

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

Pure advertising. Emeraude 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless they provide sources for their claims. User:Logical2uTalk 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete narrowly misses being db-spam. Still not notable.
    Danny Lilithborne 03:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs sources and clean up, but in general University presses are important. I want to see what this might look like if someone who knows about it removes the ad stuff and adds NPOV material. If they do that, then keep. --Bduke 12:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    RMIT University, as its a business unit of the University. Gnangarra 05:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:13Z

Bam's Unholy Union

Bam's Unholy Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Unreferenced, crystall balling about a future MTV show. Anything verifiable could doubtless be added to Bam Margera until the show goes live. Deizio talk 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. 166.40.7.81 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign in) Meghann 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced crystal balling. —
    ShadowHalo 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:12Z

Pyrénée

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

This article is like a school book report. To me this is

WP:WAF and have concluded that there is no real way to clean up an article like this. Is any book from a notable author (i.e. one who has written 2 books selling 5000 copies each ) notable enough to deserve a page? I think not. Also, I conclude that if a page is nothing other than a plot summary, that deleting is the best solution. Obina 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nomination. There's nothing in this but the plot summary and nothing to indicate that it has any notability at all. Unless somebody familiar with the work wants to add non-plot summary materials, it should be deleted. Meghann 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete for failure to meet

WP:V. If somebody wants to recreate the article at some point in the future, they can, as long as the new article meets those criteria. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

PS: post-closing, it was also pointed out this this is a copyvio of http://www.integritymaa.com/kim.htm -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bok Man Kim

Bok Man Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
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 activities 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 non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level. (Emphasis inserted by me.) Djma12 23:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Not just an "Ordinary Korean who has done a bit of martial arts", Bok Man Kim did more to spread Tae Kwon Do to south east Asia and the world then say Jhoon Rhee who has an article on wiki. He would not fall under the above category as he was never a competitor he was always an instructor and promoter of TKD who was instemental in the creation and development of what is TKD. when you ask for third party non-trivial publications he has had articles written about him in every major martial arts magazine I can think of including Black Belt, Budo, TKD & Korean Martial Arts, TKD Times and FightSport. And as far as the links being to this indiduals schools they are not. They are to the Tae Kwon Do Hall of fame and the World Chun Kuhn Do websites. And please re-read the article it has already been re-writen.Saboem 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, Jhoon Rhee's article has also been marked for deletion. Djma12 17:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Parkers article should be added to your crusade for all the same reasonsSaboem 03:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still Delete I've read the re-written article. There are still no citations other than to Bok Man Kim's schools and an unverified Taekwando Hall of Fame (which uses the same bio as his school's site...) for reference. You claim to have references to Black Belt Magazine, Budo, TKD, etc..., but I've asked for them for a week now and no reference has been found. Regardless of whether you think they've been published or not, if you can't specify the exact citation for where these references occur, this article conflicts with WP:BIO. Djma12 03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The link to TKD & Korean martial arts magazine is here http://www.martialartsinprint.com/ they also publish combat magazine which has also published articles about GM Kim their website is being redone at the moment but should be back up soon one article came out in TKD and Korean Martial arts I believe June 2003 (is a European mag so maybe that is just when it made it to the US)by the way your remark insinuating that I am making anything up is uncalled for as I have stated a siple google search would net you some info. As to the TKD Hall of Fame the Bio is what they took from his website yes but they also are in the process of scanning and uploading newspaper articles to support their info, here are some they have up now http://www.lacancha.com/brunei1.html http://www.lacancha.com/brunei2.html http://www.lacancha.com/brunei3.html the first article is in english the second and third well I am not sure what is the official language of Brunei, more are suppossed to be posted during the next month or so. Djma12 I am not sure what you are looking for but I asure you this article was put up not as an advertisement.If you have any quesstions please feel free to ask. Saboem 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't take this personally, as it is not meant as such, but none of the sources you have provided fit the WP:Bio standards as "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity." Here's why:
  • Http://www.chunkuhndo.com/ - Does not count b/c the site is an advertisement for his book. (See http://www.chunkuhndo.com/book.html)
  • The Taekwando Hall of Fame (http://www.lacancha.com/kimbokman.html) - Also does not qualify as a 3rd party source b/c it is a) An advertisement (see http://www.lacancha.com/tkdbanquet2006.html) and b) Published by sponsors of the sport or activity.
  • http://www.martialartsinprint.com/ - There is no information about Bok Man Kim on this site. Merely pointing to a "Site under Construction" page and saying that Bok Man Kim is in there is unsufficient.
  • The newspaper article on Taekwando Hall of Fame - Comes close to a 3rd party site. However: a) We need more information about the source (WP:Bio requirement for non-trivial sources, I have no idea what the "Daily Star" is) and b) The provided article does not state why Bok Man Kim is NOTABLE. It merely states that he went to Brunei.
  • Also of note, I don't think newspaper articles posted on a site classified as an advertisement or a sponsor of the sport count as 3rd Party Verification.
  • The Taekwando in Singapore Website (http://www.taekwondo.sg/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=1) - Is this even a real website? Sure, the article on Bok Man Kim works, but every other link returns a database error. It's as if the page was created for displaying one or two pages. 66.251.16.100 14:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other pages show a PHP error if you scroll down the info is there. My guess is that either they need a better PHP programer or something is messed up in translation.66.54.161.105 07:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)I have updated link to Singapore TKD siteSaboem 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Do not delete -He is one of the very early worldwide pioneers of Taekwondo but was more active in South East Asia. If he was more active in the US , I'm sure he would have been more popular.--Jondel 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless citations provided. Again, please note, I am not debating whether Bok Man Kim was important to Taewkondo or not. I am merely pointing out that no one has been able to supply 3rd party verification on this individuals notability. If some one can provide citations not linked with sponsors of the sport, including Newspaper/Magazine Name, Date, Page Number, and why the article states he is notable, I will withdraw my deletion vote. Djma12 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with delete. No independant evidence seems to be provided here that places him above other well-studied martial arts masters.LotSolarin 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take into account
    WP:NOR when posting about Bok Man. Though I am sure many here are well-respected in the Taekwando community, Wiki standards forbid us for vouching for an article based upon personal experience. Djma12 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Great, another claim for a source that is impossible to verify.Djma12 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See
    WP:BIO
    .
    Unacceptable Sources include:
  • Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works. Http://www.chunkuhndo.com/, http://www.lacancha.com/kimbokman.html fall in this category.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths. "Daily Star" newspaper article, http://www.taekwondo.sg/ fall under this category. The "new citation" that is merely a magazine cover definitely falls under this category, unless you can find the actual article.

Let's look at other WP:BIO tests

  • The professor test - Does anyone outside of his schools and Taekwando academics know who he is? I would venture to say no.
  • Verifiability - Can all information on the article be INDEPENDENTLY verified, say 10 years from now. Please see my critique above about the sources.
  • 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? We don't even know who he is NOW, much less in a 100 years...
No you don't know who he is. Why not wait for TKD & Koean Martial arts magazines website to come back up, I posted a link to the working Singapore TKD website that gives ahistory of TKD in that country, "The author of the page owns the website that sells his book, for crying out loud" so the Ed Parker page is written by one of his students that sells his video's."Does anyone outside of his schools and Taekwando academics know who he is? I would venture to say no" just like noone outside of EPAK schools don't know Ed Parker is, GM kim made 4 Hong Kong films in the 70's if you can read Chinese you can find them I have copys of one of the movies all titles are in Chinese so I am having trouble finding what studio produced. Please give a little more time to find info and links.Saboem 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject? The author of the page owns the website that sells his book, for crying out loud. Djma12 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I have sources for my claim of author profiteering...
  • Delete per Djma12 - Aagtbdfoua 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bristol Evening Post: "Kick king Andy awaits the master", July 23, 2003

ONE of the founders of a Korean martial art is to visit Bristol to pass on his knowledge at an action-packed seminar. Grandmaster Kim Bok Man will conduct a series of classes for martial arts enthusiasts from around the country and beyond. The Tae Kwon Do expert, who is credited with founding the Korean sport, is one of the most important living names in martial arts circles. And organisers of the seminar believe Grandmaster Kim will attract people from as far afield as Romania, India, Nepal and the USA.

Check the edit history to read the rest of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for research Trialsanderrors, but is this an article per WP:BIO? This sounds like an advertisement for a seminar placed in a newspaper -- much different than an article about a person. Djma12 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment post-closure The article is part of the editorial content of BEP, not paid advertising. ~ trialsanderrors 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Conscious 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiTraCon

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

Lots of google hits for litracon and light transmitting concrete, may be a notable invention. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 12:15Z

  • Speedy keep Two articles in no time at all; I'm sure there are many more. [90] [91] Akihabara 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -
Review Me!) 23:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Pilotguy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:11Z

TVCogeco

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

Spam Mhking 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:10Z

ParseEditor

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

Original research Richard W.M. Jones 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:10Z

Bronte (language)

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

Original research Richard W.M. Jones 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Vapour ware?" No citations to show it exists or has notability. Edison 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not exist. possible hoax. Tom Harrison Talk 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 FOR NN = 1 TO 10
20 IF X = "HOAX" TYPE "DELETE"
30 NEXT NN
40 RETURN
RUN
DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE Tubezone 05:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh, funny :-) Richard W.M. Jones 12:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE revisions SET deleted = true WHERE deleted = false AND article_id = (SELECT id FROM article WHERE title = 'Bronte (language)'); -- No, I have no inclination to see how this really works in MediaWiki, I've heard the MW database schema makes children cry -- Self-admitted vapourware that has absolutely no unique, world-changing features and indication of widespread notability regrettably has to go... Welcome back when it's famous enough! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly more elegant than my
GOTO statements and spaghetti code, anyway.. can anyone do a delete statement in COBOL? Tubezone 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:09Z

Alan Bathe

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

AfD nominated by 89.100.35.77. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun 1 1/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adding Shotgun 1 1/2 to this debate, it's just as much a load o' blarney as the supposed author's article. Tubezone 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn and Speedy Keep. It appears I nominated this article to soon, as it has developed significantly since the nomination.. Navou talk 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton, County Tipperary

Littleton, County Tipperary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) � (View AfD)

Does not seem notable. Also very little content. Navou talk 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I thought the consensus was to keep articles for inhabited villages, even without multiple sources. I found Google hits for such a place, so it seems not to be a hoax. Edison 00:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - real place. I've managed to expand it very slightly. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eventually managed to do so - after two edit conflicts and a server lock. Maaaan WP has been slow this week. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would yo PLEASE get rid of whatever block you are operating. I'm trying to compose an article. TY. (Sarah777 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    • Not us - just WP server slowdowns. Seems that everyone has decided to celebrate the holidays by editing simultaneously. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton is a place, a village

What requirement an inhabited village has to make it 'notable' is beyond me! Could you not check my list of CONTRIBUTIONS before chopping???? This is tiresome. Happy Christmas regardless!! (Sarah777 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • What has your list of contributions got to do with anything? If you look, you'll see that debate is leaning towards keep, as is understandable for an inhabited place. Shouting won't help one way or the other. Please try to remain
    WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Shouting?

Shouting? Come again please? And "What has your list of contributions got to do with anything?". Please try to remain civil yourself, sir. What do you think they might have to do with anything? And you reckon "Happy Christmas" is a hostile remark? What country are you from? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_22&oldid=1116878224"