Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 10 November 12 >

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, mistaken nom. -Amarkov blahedits 23:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skate rock

Skate rock (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Keep. Mistakenly nominated. Poorly-written article with not much content, but skate rock is a valid and verifiable concept johnpseudo 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.

(non-admin closure)[reply
]

Pandey

Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The "Pandey" article was erroneous set for deletion. The page was vandalized on November 10, 2006 by a user from the IP address 71.36.158.64. The original, valid content of the article was replaced by the vandalizer with the following text:

One of the more influential Uppaluris is Albert Uppaluri. He was born on January 14th, 2003 in the Lolyboli Lands of Calcutta . He is a devouted garbage man for the village, abd now is the head of The Garbage School of Morons located in Kanab, which is 5 miles southeast of Sydney, Australia. He loves Australia, because of his love for whales. He married on Feburary 13th, with his beloved whale Johia. They have had seven kids, and one is curerntly on the way. Researchers can't determine how this has happened, and they don't really want to know. He goes to India every summer to his home village of Andhra Pradesh, in hopes of converting more to the religion of Morons. The Uppaluris thought Albert was a beast in thier village, and thought he was a god. He fought every demon there ever was, and sucked there blood out, and spat it into the ocean. Albert currently changed his name to whale killer for fun, and his wife killed him. He came back from the dead January 14th, 2003, and researchers want to forget about his existence. One researcher says, "Albert scares me," and another says,"I just don't know what he sees in that whale, I want him to come to the light and see me for who I am,"

The history of contributions associated with 71.36.158.64 shows two articles. The present and one titled "Uppaluri".

The original content was restored and revised on the same day.

This article should not be deleted.

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

Chick Bowen 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Derek Leung

Derek Leung (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-Notable, Vanity Gilgamesh Rex 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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



























































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

The result was Speedied. --humblefool® 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Sandstone

Evelyn Sandstone (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Original fiction for series that the article admits has not yet been released. Zero notability. NMChico24 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

SC4EVER

SC4EVER (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

WP:WEB guideline as the website hasn't been "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" or "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation". Alexa ranking of 801, 708 and only 537 Google results.--TBCΦtalk? 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was deletable silliness. DS 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Power Movement

John Power Movement (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Notability not asserted, no sources, may be a hoax. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 04:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardening Angels

The Gardening Angels (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested prod (removed without comment by article creator); non-notable bar band; no secondary references; does not meet the criteria in

WP:MUSIC. Charlene 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Redirect to Cannabis sativa. The edit history remains intact if someone actually wants to weed (sic) through the list, but absent reliable sources I don't see anything for me to move into the target article. ~ trialsanderrors 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cannabis strains

List of cannabis strains (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Chondrite 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Nin10doh

Nin10doh (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

WP:WEB guideline as the website hasn't been "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" or "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation". Alexa ranking of 4,422,954 and only 535 Google results.--TBCΦtalk? 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Late 1900s

Late 1900s (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-encyclopedic essay, loaded with opinion statements, and without sources or verification. Agent 86 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Key songs of the new age scene

Key songs of the new age scene (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact that there are no sources whatsoever (

WP:RS), turning it into a subjective squabble about which songs are or aren't "key songs". (Not all the artists on there are even New Age.) Crystallina 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - Someone's playlist belongs in someone's MP3 player, not on Wikipedia. --Nehwyn 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the creator's defense, I think the only common ground these share is that these songs may have charted on Billboard or somesuch at one point or another, and many of them are good songs. Hell, I like Enya, especially her early stuff. But, as is also pointed out here in the AfD post, there's too broad of a definition to what constitutes a "key song" to new age music, and frankly, I'm not about to go researching these songs on Billboard to see if they charted at all. That, and as per what Nehwyn pointed out, this looks an awful lot like somebody's iPod playlist. Delete. --71.216.9.26 07:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the above was me. Don't know why I bumped off.... --Dennisthe2 07:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nehwyn. And I never want to meet the person with that MP3 player. Freshacconci 02:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone can find sources, I recommened that it be merged into
    New Age music and turn the section into something like this. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 05:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthracy

Anthracy (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Delete-- This is a completely unknown "philosophy"

made up in school one day
. From the text of the article it is a:

"philosophical belief begun in 2003 by Trystan Snyder....created as a desperate attempt at salvaging the world."

Looks like nothing but the ramblings of a restless teenager. Zero google hits for subject or the "Philosopher" who created it. OfficeGirl 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as non-notable, two year old
    neologism.--TBCΦtalk? 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per TBC. --Eyrian 03:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN and made up.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I used to come up with philosophies to save the world when I was in the throes of teen angst too. Doesn't make them notable. Lankiveil 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Gridlock. I see two consensi here: 1. This article should not stay as is, and where it is, and 2. It contains "salvageable" material which could be included elsewhere. Since I can't divine what is salvageable I'll put a merge tag up for now and revisit (and redirect) in a week. Everything else is editorial decision and should be discussed at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton

Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Reason The Sign of Four 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no place in Wikipedia.

Quotes about speculated cosmetic surgery and dress code belong in a gossip magazine, not an encyclopedia. A name is less popular than it was ten or twenty years ago? That is the rule, not an exception. A married woman keeps her surname? Honestly, I wonder who wrote this article.

Any real controversy should be posted to the main article and discussed there. It's my opinion that nothing in this article qualifies though.

  • Comment. The Sign of Four,as a procedural issue, could you please set forth the specific Wikipedia policy or policies that demonstrate why you believe this article should be deleted? Thank you. OfficeGirl 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. True, these are not heavyweight controversies; those are contained in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which is referenced at the top of this article. But these are matters that have come up fairly often regarding HRC. The remark about cosmetic surgery came from her Republican opponent in the Senate race this year, not a gossip mag. The Tammy Wynette and baking cookies remarks were famous fiascos and got tons of media attention in 1992 and thereafter. The name changing bit is also clearly important, as it had political ramifications in Arkansas at the time and she made a big point of restoring the 'Rodham' officially in 1993. Like her or not, HRC has taken a unique path through American life and encountered or triggered various cultural rifts along the way; this article's purpose is to document those. Wasted Time R 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the so-called "cultural rifts" in the article are ephemeral and trivial. Bwithh 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such "ephemeral and trivial" rifts continue to be discussed to this day concerning the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for the US presidency.
JChap2007 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Coverage by sources is necessary but not sufficient condition for encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, a number of sources used in the article are not reliable sources e.g. blogs. Some of these are not controversies - the hairstyle website and the "high voltage actress" (whatever that is) Sharon Stone supposed quote. This is a poorly put together article, besides the other issues Bwithh 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the items are supposed to be controversies; 'controversies' is not in the title of the article. Wasted Time R 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the poor quality (although this has never been a reason to delete). Some of the later entries should be sourced better or deleted as well.
JChap2007 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I've now added cites for the sections that were missing them. Wasted Time R 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is salvageable. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic gossip-column nonsense. The name-changing bit may be worth merging, as it was a fair amount of controversy despite belonging in the American politics version of
    WP:LAME (hmm, doesn't all politics go in there?) Opabinia regalis 04:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge into Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies as appropriate (i.e. cut back aggressively on detail, importance). Maybe into a section like Cultural criticism. As it is this reads like a trivia section or a light magazine feature, not an encyclopedic article, and despite NPOV language and rebuttal links, comes across as treating a politician differently because she is a woman. There's no comparable section in our articles for any male politician (that I know of). I do think there's something to be said about how HRC is such a major icon in the culture war -- at least, that's where most of the criticism and dislike of her intermingle. As an article, though, this is just unfocused and poorly scoped. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sections 2, 3 and 8 into controversies article, as they are all quite well sourced and documented. Rename what's left of the article into something like Aesthetic controversies of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can't come up with a better name than that, it's not my fault the American media is interminably shallow and pretentious. Black-Velvet 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anything to do with Clinton's appearance, her name, her personal life, all goes into the Aesthetic article. Anything to do with controversies she's started by saying something inappropriate, regarding social issues that have immediate political consequences, are placed in the controversies article. Black-Velvet 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that moving material back into
Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, all of which were split out of the main article to reduce its size. Wasted Time R 12:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge if there's anything that can be salvaged. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Appears some things are verified and can possibly be kept. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. And by that I mean that it some of the more credible (if any) information should be merged into appropriate articles, and the rest should be deleted. Also, I think this should be done asap. I'd sooner have it deleted quickly with the remote risk of loosing some useful information than have the page hanging around. Just my thoughts :) --JE.at.UWOU|T 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not what wikipedia is for meshach 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly sourced political gossip. Edison 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Political gossip.
    Westenra 03:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Gossipy junk.Akanksha 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep these are cultural issues of the sort historians will be discussing for the next 100 years--as indeed we have been discussing similar issues re Eleanor Roosevelt in scholarly books and journals. It should remain a separate article (the main bio is already too long--and will be much longer in 2 years). Rjensen 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Everybody knows that the Wikipedia is fast becoming an easy way for people to clandestinely further their political agendas. This article refines the technique and should be required reading for all who want to make Wikipedia a sub-rosa means for furthering hidden agendas. Bravo to the authors. BTW, can someone please write a "Cultural matters related to Monica Lewinski" article? --Me
  • Strong Delete per nom and the ridiculousness of all the Keep votes such as the one above.
    Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The "Everybody knows that the Wikipedia is fast ..." vote was from an anon and should be disregarded whatever it says. Wasted Time R 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep informative but reduce instances of PoV. - Patman2648 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ugh. Some of this is worth keeping but could be merged into the main article. Definitely delete this as a disorganized collection of tidbits, some of it true, some of it unsupported, all of it without an organizing principle. --Richard 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is embarrassing. It's hard to think of anything less unencyclopedic that unsourced gossip that adds nothing to the general knowledge. This makes WP a laughingstock.Francisx 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same article? There's nothing in here that's unsourced, and little that is gossip. Wasted Time R 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Merge These articles belong on Wikipedia in order to fully understand the cultural issues of our time and the opinions of our elected members on them.
  • Merge the NPOV points appropriately, delete the rest. WMMartin 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Ludicrous listing of gossipy, extremely non-notable "information", some of which is sourced solely to blogs. I don't think any amount of editing would make this article worth keeping.-Hal Raglan 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --

desat 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Destroy to Create

Destroy to Create (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Non-notable album by non-notable band. The article on the band was deleted and protected to prevent re-creation. OfficeGirl 02:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Eyrian 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It should be noted that A7 doesn't cover albums, though this should have been prodded. MER-C 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does fall under CSD A7, as A7 covers all band related content. Regardless, if CSD A7 doesn't apply, G11 certaintly does.--TBCΦtalk? 03:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it did, but the article must be about a band, not just simply related to it. MER-C 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the article is about a band, specifically a band's album. Either way, as I mentioned above, if CSD A7 doesn't apply, then G11 does.--TBCΦtalk? 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Techinically, the article is about an album, not the band who produced it. (Just like the
Tale of Two Cities article is about a novel, not the writer who produced it.) Therefore, db-band does not apply. --Nehwyn 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --

desat 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Offbeat (percussion group)

This group doesn't seem notable enough. I couldn't really find many relevant Google results, except for those that originated from Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. --

desat 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

McDonald Investment Center

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

A non-notable building in Cleveland, Ohio. Not even one of the taller buildings, as it is 16th in the city. Cheesechunky 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable building. Interesting though. Mildly interesting. DoomsDay349 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A shame we feel we must delete interesting stubs, and keep pages for obscure albums because of some non binding guidelines.Obina 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable building. As the nom mentioned, the building isn't even the tallest in the city.--TBCΦtalk? 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN building.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When it was built it was one of the tallest buildings in Cleveland, 5th to be exact. If Wikipedia was around in the 60's when it was built, the building would have been notable, so it should still be notable now. 11kowrom 04:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unless some more information is given about it sometime soon. Being 16th tallest in a city of only 470 000 people isn't a good claim to fame. Black-Velvet 06:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. But when it was built it was the 5th tallest building in a city of 870,000 people. Quite a difference there. Lorty 14:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. I guess you're right. The article has expanded suitably. Has Cleveland really depopulated that much? Jeez. Black-Velvet 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In Fact, Cleveland was at one time over 900,000 people. 11kowrom 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless article is expanded. It's not that a big city, so not all the top 20 tallest buildings in the city are notable. --
    e Ong (C | R) 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete. For bordering on an 'no content whatsoever'. Spinach Dip 10:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as for its height, it is notable for its location (9th and Superior) and for the companies in it today such a Tishman Speyer and Cantor Seinuk. This stub seems the sort that, if expanded, makes Wikipedia so good. I admit its not the Empire State Building, but the article will be more helpful and encyclopedic than that for a back up goalie of a third division football team.Obina 12:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please look again. I have expanded a bit. A page like this which mentions a few small companies, some history, and some location, seems helpful. As you can see, it can direct one to a number of directions, and in fact prevents future AFD discussions on these small companies needing their own page.Obina 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Obina and 11kowrom. Lorty 14:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any history included in the article which is pretty essential for notability since it's not otherwise notable. This is a start for 'building notability' standards: User:Isotope23/Notability:Buildings Antonrojo 15:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not American; but surely Cleveland, Ohio is not so important that its 16th tallest building, or even its 5th, gains notability thereby without any other assertion therof?--
    Anthony.bradbury 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Article can be cleaned up to provide useful information. --Falcorian (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See
    GRBerry 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, i was unaware of that. But 1717 East Ninth Building did have an AFD debate, and it was deemed notable. 55 public square also had a AFD debate, and that passed as well. All are Cleveland buildings.
  • Keep per Obina Rhino131 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly would be notable enough for an encyclopedia of Cleveland, and the Cleveland area is plenty large enough to warrant decent local coverage. Unfocused 06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete + comments: This is a dull article -- can anyone do something to make it a bit more compellling? A picture? Some history? I know it's not an encyclopedic objective, but interesting would be nice. Ideally, a list of Cleveland's notable buildings would be good. That way, buildings on the cusp like this one could go into a table with some stats until enough info is gathered to justify a separate article. In the meantime, I just don't think this article is quite notable enough. --A. B. 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In is normal to make a decision based on the topic being notable, rather than the article being notable as is, or being too dull. If we delete it in the mean time then there will be no stub to improve. There are many stub pages on Wikipedia - but over time they get better. Agree a picture will help - if I were not 6000 km away, I'd pop over and take one. If we keep this page, there is a much great chance someone will add a pic.Obina 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --

desat 03:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fillgraderstiege

Fillgraderstiege (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable. Only gets 917 ghits. It's a staircase, for heaven sakes. WikiBot 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about the Great Platte River Road Archway Monument. "It's an arch over a road?" Size doesnt make a difference. As I stated earlier, this is a beautiful piece of architecture that you wont see very many other places. It is very unique. - grubber 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Great Platte River Road Archway Monument is also a museum.--TBCΦtalk? 04:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But when I drove under that arch, and when I walked by those steps, you look and think, "What the hell is that all about?" They stand out. I think it's nice that WP has some (perhaps brief) information on what these sites are. - grubber 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a work of architectural art. It stays. Black-Velvet 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a fine example of Art Nouveau from a city which was critical in that movement's development. The claim that it is particularly beautiful is referenced. The winner in that poll was the Spanish Steps incidentally; are they just another staircase, or perhaps an important Roman landmark? Stairs can evidently be notable. --Stemonitis 09:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well known set of stairs (as odd as that may sound) which are important in the world of architecture. --The Way 10:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be a well-known piece in the world of architecture. -- Whpq 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vienna is a city with an immense importance in the history of architecture so Viennese landmarks are worthy of inclusion. WP is not just about the English-speaking world. --
    Folantin 13:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Landmark noted for it beauty. JASpencer 13:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim that something can be noteworthy in German but not in English lets
    WP:BIAS back in. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Well written, and informative. --Falcorian (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep, notable architectural monument. -- Ekjon Lok 21:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at the absolute minimum merge into Mariahilf. An impressive work of public art/architecture into one of the world's most famous cities would seem to me to be automatically notable. Vafthrudnir 17:16, 11 November (EST)
  • Comment - I am pretty much convinced that the staircase is notable, but I'd really like to see some
    notability. --Nehwyn 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep "It aint English so it aint notable!?" PAH! Notable piece of architecture. Jcuk 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "the fourth most beautiful steps in Europe" deserves an entry.
    Westenra 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Well written, seems notable, (Translated German page:[3])raptor 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not just a staircase... It has a long history and is apparently a work of art, seeing that placing as fourth most-beautiful in Europe. -newkai t-c 20:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Knowledgeable tourists go out of their way to see this. Whenever that's true, we should have an article. Unfocused 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of Dubbo

City of Dubbo (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

It's a double page of

Dubbo, New South Wales and the information in the "City of" page is identical to the NSW page (which has lots more information on the city). Really, there's no need for the City of Dubbo page as I see it. ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I have registed a complaint in relation to this discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board: "Why is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Dubbo not listed at this notice board? This discussion seems to ignore the work being done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places" --Grahamec 04:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, since someone is complaining that the work being done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places is being overlooked, could they please explain what is the difference between the Dubbo page and the City of Dubbo page and what it is that they are trying to achieve. I will withhold commenting on the deletion itself until they do, but right now I see no reason to keep. --Bduke 04:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold it! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places has established naming conventions, and while currently the articles may reflect similar content, the intent is for LGA's and towns (which are vastly different) to have seperate articles. The town Dubbo, and the LGA Dubbo are different and with time they will reflect this. Please do not delete this page without considering debate at the afore mentioned WP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SauliH (talk • contribs)
  • OK, I'll say Keep, but just do a quick fix on both articles so the difference is clear and cross reference the two is a way that is not confusing. The rest of the detail can be done later. --Bduke 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant this... the lead in for

Local Government Area". In fact, articles for places in Australia. I am going to change the lead, to avoid this first item of confusion. Place names in Australia are a work in progress as the 'stub' designation specifies on the City of Dubbo page.SauliH 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

That's better, thanks SauliH. --Canley 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places there are a number Australian articles that are being split into the suburd/town area and the Local Government Authority this is just one of them. Gnangarra 05:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dubbo is a town; City of Dubbo is a local government area. There shouldn't be two articles with virtually identical content; but there should be two articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places is currently dealing with this precise issue. Trust us; we can handle it. Hesperian 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places#LGA naming convention? for ongoing related discussion.SauliH 06:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Dubbo, NSW. There isn't enough material there to be worth two pages. If at some future date the Dubbo page gets too long, then split it. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The City of Dubbo article was created only six days ago please give editors time to expand there is enough information for both articles to exist. Gnangarra 06:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for the vote of confidence. :P :)SauliH 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep City of Dubbo and Dubbo are distinct topics as per many people above.
    Talk) 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Real place. --Oakshade 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a local government area as distinct from the town/city of Dubbo which is its principle town. I was tempted to speedy keep this given the comments of the nominator following the improvements to the article but there are a couple of delete votes. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Perhaps the person who put this article up for deletion doesn't understand the local government laws in Australia. I'll start an article about it. Atlantis Hawk 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard.--
    talk 08:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep as per
    JROBBO 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep. We don't delete articles on US counties. Rebecca 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strone Keep as per policies mandated by WikiProject: Australian Places. The LGA and town are two separately governed entities. --Rambutaan 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. The edit history is still there if someone wants to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon LeRoach

Napoleon LeRoach (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Non-notable villian from a rather unknown video game series. Individual characters in video games rarely are notable enough for their own article. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Spy Fox.--TBCΦtalk? 03:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spy Fox. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 04:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spy Fox. A lot of fictional video game characters have their own articles, but the video itself in this case will have to develop a little before I allow this. Black-Velvet 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Spy Fox or list of characters from the games (if someone feels they can add more than one). The information may not deserve it's own article, but that does not mean the information should be removed. --Falcorian (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Falcorian. --Nehwyn 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per author request [4]. ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Wisconzine

Asian Wisconzine (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Appears to fail

db-bio}} but now I believe it needs further discussion Gwernol 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment- given the award, I did a major cleanup of the article so it is less of an advertisement --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the original editor reverted it back to the long, promotional version. Fine - I'll leave that up for AfD. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I would like to see more information and sources before I would commit to a strong keep. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASIAN WISCONZINE It had enough info until it was "cleaned up" by ZimZalaBim. --alden pascual
  • Delete - the person, not the magazine got the award. Of course, they're probably pretty much one and the same. Any idea how many of these awards the SBA gives out? And what's the level of real merit for a journalism award given out by the SBA anyway? Is the criteria good journalism, or is it just turning a profit sooner than expected? Rklawton 04:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some points for your consideration:

1. The MAGAZINE is the FIRST AND ONLY ALL-INCLUSIVE MAGAZINE IN WISCONSIN. It is a milestone in itself. 2. The publisher has received various certificates of recognition from the governor of Wisconsin, the Dane County executive, and the Mayor of the City of Madison3. Most recently, the publisher and editor received the 2006 Journalist of the year award for the State of Wisconsin from the US Small Business Administration. 4. Asian Wisconzine is the ONLY VENUE for discussions of issues being faced by Asian Americans in contemporary America. It is a printed magazine with an online version distributed free in hundreds of retail outlets in Wisconsin, and has hundreds of paid subscribers in the academe, professional circles, neighborhood centers, and individual homes.

Like I said, the award is for the publisher and editor which she received because of the magazine. The magazine has already covered a lot of issues and can be viewed on the website's archives (www.asianwisconzine.com). The award can be verified at www.sba.gov as a pdf file. (http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/wi_milwaukee/wi_pr0611.pdf) -Alden Pascual

I hope this satisfies your said guidelines, and don't delete this in Wikipedia. --Alden Pascual

Alden, please
independent sources that show this is the case. Please stop attacking the motives of the editors in thie discussion and instead work to improve the article by addressing the valid points they are raising. Thanks, Gwernol 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
      • Maybe if I am ganged up more? -alden pascual
        • There are hundreds of cities and mayors and regional newspapers in the United States. How is this one more notable than any other?--TBCΦtalk? 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody is "ganging up" on you, Alden. This is a community site and the community is discussing whether your article meets our policies for inclusion. I'm sorry if that seems like "ganging up", but the fact is that we operate by consensus, so discussion of all points is necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr. Hartung: Thanks for that. Believe me when I say that I understand the general intention here. But I can't help but feel that way especially when poor choice of words is used to present those intentions/Wikipedia posting guidelines. --alden pascual
      • Because we are the only one like this in Wisconsin. -alden pascual
        • I'm the only one like me on the planet, but I don't get an article. Rklawton 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sarcasm and ignorant comments don't convince me that you are actually qualified in what you are doing here. -alden pascual
      • By the way, I appreciate very mature criticism and comments from Zim and Gwernol --alden pascual
  • Weak delete if no other third-party coverage can be found. Whatever merit the magazine may have to the Asian-American community in the fair state of Wisconsin (where I live, incidentally), it does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiable and notable material. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was clearly started as an advertisement, and one award doesn't make it notable enough to stay. While I am sympathetic to minority groups, especially in America, I'm not sympathetic enough to let this stay. Also, this is another case of the word 'Asian' being used only to refer to people from East Asian countries, like China and Japan. Asia is a gigantic continent, stretching from Palestine to Japan, with more cultural diversity than any other continent. Please learn this. I could go on about how 'race' hasn't been an accepted concept in Anthropology since the '60s, but you get the picture. Black-Velvet 07:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, why do you have to make it about an issue of race? The word "ASIAN" is used primarily to name the magazine, in case you didn't think about that. I am tired of all of this. Just delete it so you can satisfy your ignorance and only chance of overpowering someone. -alden pascual
      • by the way, thanks for making my FIRST FEW HOURS of being a newbie here very UNCOMFORTABLE, and not welcome.

Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

-alden pascual

  • Comment: I'm sorry, I don't want to discourage you. Rather than be discouraged by this experience, you should learn from it. I'm sure you have a lot of useful information at your disposal that could benefit Wikipedia greatly. However, this article we're discussing just doesn't meet the notability criteria. Please, don't feel discouraged, and please, sign your comments with ~~~~ Black-Velvet 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ===...===

Easy for you to say. I was the one who had to deal with all this from different users here for HOURS. I am so disappointed from the hospitality of most people I've interacted with here today. Those so-called Wikipedian Veterans should have known how to treat newcomers like me better.

--alden pascual

    • ===PLEASE===

Please delete it and be done with it already. I now choose to succumb to the powers that be. Trying to do this was a very huge mistake. Again, thanks for making my FIRST FEW HOURS of being a newbie here very UNCOMFORTABLE, and not welcome. -alden pascual

Keeping all articles made by newbies and respecting mewbie edits are two very different things. Regardless, I'm sorry if you've felt that some of my comments have discouraged you, but please remember that an article must satisfy Wikipedia's
notability guidelines in order for it to be kept.--TBCΦtalk? 10:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete.
    WP:COI creator. Being a magazine isn't notable; being the first (anything)-in-Wisconsin is probably not notable; being the first (ethnic group)-(anything)-in-Wisconsin even less so. Being in a local time capsule (link given as evidence by creator) isn't notable. Simultaneously claiming it's an "Asian" magazine and "ALL-INCLUSIVE MAGAZINE" (whatever that means) at the same time sounds like grasping for excuses - not that it's evidence of non-notability in itself. Author invites people to come to Madison WI to get proof - lack of verifiability outside Madison is strong evidence of non-notability. (P.S. to Alden Pascual: Implying that Wikipedians have some agenda and "don't want us to express our voice or even to show our existence" doesn't help you look reliable.) --Closeapple 11:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

WP:V deletions, anyone who finds sources later can get in touch with me about restoring or userfying the article. ~ trialsanderrors 10:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jatin Thakkar

Jatin Thakkar (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Questionable notability. Possible vanity article. ghits: [5] NMChico24 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Mmmm...tough one, here. The newspaper he was featured on has an article, he seems to have done some notable things. Needs cleanup and references, but I think it's salvageable. DoomsDay349 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DoomsDay349. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above. -Playadom 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims of notability need to be
    reliable sources. --TBCΦtalk? 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Delete Fails
    WP:PROF[[11]]. Canadian Gujarati radio gig can be verified, but is not encyclopedically notable - its a half hour show every Wednesday localized to Toronoto, and which runs its website off a free webhost. Bwithh 04:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, I checked the claim to have been "featured" in The Weekly Voice newspaper (a Canadian newspaper for South Asian newspapers). The Voice has digital pdf copies of its editions online. The only mentions of Thakkan I can find are 1) an advertisment for the radio show 2)a letter to the editor[12]. The Markham paper is a much smaller local paper and does have online digital copies or news archives beyond 14 days. However, in light of the Voice instance, I think its reasonable to think that the claim that Thakkan was "featured" on the cover of this newspaper means another advert. In any case The Weekly Voice and The Markham Economist are not weighty enough publications to support encyclopedic notability even if the features were genuine journalistic articles Bwithh 04:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with Bwitty. Vanity, and the article was obviously written by someone with a rather poor grasp of the English language - so if it stays, it needs a major rewrite. Black-Velvet 08:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. utcursch | talk 11:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Antorjal 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep-The person is notable. But the current form of the article should be rewrited. This article is created by a new wikipedian. That reflects in the style of writing and formating. If it was written by a habitual user the impact may be different.Gujarati newspaper reports are not available in google. But some of my Gujarati friends says that he is a notable fellow. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article's claims are correct, then seems notable. However, major rewrite and sourcing needed. --Falcorian (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unreferenced. (And holy moley, what's with the photograph?) --Nehwyn 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep seems somewhat notable. Needs cleanup though. Jcuk 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, pending references for the claims for fame to be added to the article. Offline sources are sufficient for this purpose, If I understand correctly.
    Westenra 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted CSD-A7.

ЯEDVERS 14:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Anirudh Hattangadi

Anirudh Hattangadi (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable teenager. Prod tag removed by creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-nn teenager, likely vanity article written by him or one of his friends, he's done nothing notable, if he ever makes it pro, then he can have his article back. DoomsDay349 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, whether the new accounts are considered or not, there is a consensus to delete here. --

desat 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Lee (Tennis Superstar)

Jason Lee (Tennis Superstar) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable superstar, unsourced, can't find on google. Weregerbil 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete. I looked this guy up on google recently, he actually does exist, and the facts seem to be true. I'm also surprised, I thought it was a hoax at first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffbriggs04 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete. I watched him play in Australia earlier this year, and the article is not so much 'crystal balling' what will happen, it is more just explaining that he is a great talent to watch out for. I've heard of him, I think we should keep the article.Hey babe
    — Richiebarilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Canley 06:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. Perhaps if it was changed from Tennis Superstar to Tennis Player it would be ok. He is real though and the facts are all true so it should be kept. If you want proof of him and his talent come to the Australian Open and watch the juniors event.

Lee Enterprizes 05:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google News comes up with no results [15] indicating that he has not yet made an impact in the professionals as yet. If he does become a professional tennis player according to the standards outlined in

WP:BIO, we can create an article then. BTW, is being known as the "Australian cyclops" such a good thing as Cyclops only had one eye. Capitalistroadster 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep ~ trialsanderrors 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town Topics (newspaper)

Town Topics (newspaper) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Bringing here as the prod tag was removed previously and placed on it again. It was prodded as a non-notable newspaper. cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really weak delete. It seems to just fall beneath notability criteria. By the way, before anyone tries this, being in Princeton does not confer notability. -Amarkov babble 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominatory. Black-Velvet 08:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article can be made into an informative one. --Falcorian (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I posted on the article, In 1946, Emily Stuart helped her husband and other relatives establish a weekly newspaper called Town Topics that has been published in Princeton since 1946. On April 4, 1989, Emily Stuart, 74, was found stabbed to death in the basement of her stately Mercer Street home in a quiet neighborhood near Princeton University. This family owned paper has been around since 1946. Given that its family owned, the stabbing event, and that the paper has been around since 1946, more research is bound to reveal enough information to move the article well above the notability criteria threshold. -- Jreferee 07:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep This paper has a readership of 34,000, which is significantly larger than most of my random sampling of weekly newspapers with articles here.
    Kathy A. 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Since there are still delete arguments, this is not a speedy keep candidate, and there isn't a clear consensus here. --

desat 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Toe cleavage

Toe cleavage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

non-encyclopedic; dictionary definition; linkless

Ling.Nut 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete. And transfer to

WP:BJAODN. Great stuff. Black-Velvet 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. It's nonsense, but almost funny. Spinach Dip 10:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disturbing Delete - transfer to
    WP:BJAODN as per Black-Velvet. --tgheretford (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It appears that a lot of editors only read the article and didn't do the necessary research. Prepare to be amazed. This article isn't nonsense or an attempt at humour. It is a genuine, albeit niche, concept in ladies' fashion. It has been written about by columnists such as stylist Susan Conterno, by columnists such as Meredith Broussard (Meredith Broussard (2003-04-23). "Foot for Thought". Philadelphia City Paper.), in Warner Brothers' magazines (Erika Dykstra. "Peep Toe Pumps". The OC Insider. WBEI.), in the New York Times reporting people undergoing surgery "for the sake of better toe cleavage" (Gardiner Harris (2003-12-07). "If Shoe Won't Fit, Fix the Foot? Popular Surgery Raises Concern". The New York Times.), by the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ("Foot Fashionitis? — Foot Surgery A Perilous Mistake for Fashion". American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society.), and by others ("The Ultimate Makeover: Cinderella". LifePath Retreats.). This is a very poor stub, but it is a stub, and, in particular with what the AOFAS has to say on the whole subject, there is scope for expansion. Keep. Uncle G 15:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my uncle. Cleanup/expand article and cite all those sources. Hey, there's a Buttock cleavage article, so why not? Wavy G 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Uncle G. --Falcorian (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. (Good work!) -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Completely silly, non-encyclopedic article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its current form, I would say most definitely Delete. But on the condition that Uncle G's references are integrated... I'd go for Keep. An excellent example of the importance of
    citing sources. --Nehwyn 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Get real. Stupidity at its finest.Akanksha 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep on the grounds that the AfD author requested it be kept. --Dennisthe2 08:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The
    GRBerry 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per UncleG. I'll be damned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as if that wasn't already a foregone conclusion. This is proof that in order to really know what to keep and what to delete, you have to have a bit of imagination, assume good faith (even when it seems improbable), and be willing to do some research. The topic hasn't changed a bit, but the perception of it has been matured by UncleG's treatment of it. Even the first two sentences are virtually identical to their original stub version. Great work UncleG. Unfocused 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --

desat 04:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mayer Zald

Mayer Zald (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

non-notable academic

Ling.Nut 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - not notable by WP:ACD (I know it's only a proposal, but still). Needs more references. Black-Velvet 09:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As a former department chairman at the University of Michigan he would seem to be more notable than the average professor. --Metropolitan90 09:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Metropolitan90 points out, more notable than average and therefore notable enough. --Falcorian (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More notable than average is notable enough? Every former dept. chair of every university gets a Wikipedia page? I despair for the universe. Truly, I do. --
    Ling.Nut 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep Per [16] he arguably meets criterion 2 in
    WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Former department chair at Vanderbilt and UofM, plus the link provided by JoshuaZ makes it clear that he's notable enough. Unfocused 07:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --

desat 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bryan Stone

Bryan Stone (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unconvincing notable accomplishments; article started by subject

WP:AUTO CobaltBlueTony 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete. --Ixfd64 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Computers

Tesla Computers (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

delete - this article is not making any progress in meeting the

WP:CORP criteria, even after nudging the author in that direction with prod and notability tag. JonHarder 05:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 04:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The_Chess_Show

The_Chess_Show (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Not notable, fancruft Uncle Bungle 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN public access show. Also, the link to the "lovely actress" goes to some non-Wiki link. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • nom and delete a Portland, OR public access show isn't really suitable for an encyclopedia. --Uncle Bungle 05:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Public access television shows are inherently non-notable, no matter where they are from, until proven otherwise, since typically their viewership is so low as to be unmeasurable. --Metropolitan90 08:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Public access television shows are inherently non-notable... ESPECIALLY when they've been off the air for 8 years. Spinach Dip 10:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a simple re-hash of the product advertising. A quick search on the names of the authors cited turned up the product's advertisement hosted on an "about the seller" page at eBay. The article is a straight lift of the potted quotations in the "what the experts are saying about our product" section of the product advertisement. There is no reason to suppose that this selection of opinions is neutral, representative, or presented in adequate context. There may be an encyclopaedia article to be had on this product. But simple paraphrasing of an advertisement is not how to construct an encyclopaedia article. A re-hash of an advertisement results in another advertisement. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. It is unacceptable to host this advertisement on a Wikipedia page whilst we await a proper encyclopaedia article (if one is possible) to be written. Uncle G 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlossBrite

FlossBrite (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable, advertisement, unencyclopedic

Ronz 05:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Was prod'd as "Non-notable, unencyclopedic". Since then the single contributor to the article has expanded it to a simple advertisement, but has not provided any information to demonstrate it is notable in any way. --

Ronz 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio.

Chick Bowen 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Deumus

Deumus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

This was tagged for

Chick Bowen 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. A merge could be done, I've added merge tags. W.marsh 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Blog

Quick Blog (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

This isn't very notable, and really is just wasting space.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GreenJoe 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge into
    Go Daddy.--TBCΦtalk? 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per above. utcursch | talk 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some ax you're trying to grind here, GreenJoe? I don't get why this is "wasting space." Look at another page in this category:
    ExpressionEngine How is that any more notable? I added the entry after adding Quick Blog to the list at MetaWeblog and I figured it would be nice to have an actual entry to suggest what Quick Blog was. I assumed that the red look of the other blog software in that list was an invitation to create entries. --Bbrown 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted - hoax/vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 11:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derf of Many Worlds

Derf of Many Worlds (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Obvious hoax. Possibly speedy candidate.

TacoDeposit 06:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Very quick delete I doubt that Travis Johnson (football player?) would appreciate this!
Would urge archiving on BJAODN as the song titles are quite humourous!!
SkierRMH 07:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaphet Kotto (band)

Yaphet Kotto (band) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Notability appears highly questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was initially concerned when I saw that three of their albums were released on
    WP:MUSIC (and if it's not notable, I thought, maybe that article could use a prod). But when I checked, it turned out that Ebullition Records is a redirect to Kent McClard. Mr. McClard looks like he may be moderately notable as a person, but not necessarily as a record label. So I went ahead and checked AMG, and they do have the name "Yaphet Kotto" on file, but with no bio or discography! I'd call that fairly conclusive proof of non-notability. Xtifr tälk 13:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --

desat 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Historically-defined racial groups in India

Historically-defined racial groups in India (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The article is essentially a POV fork of Demographics of India and contains a lot of references to pseudoscientific race theories cooked up in Europe during the 19th century, most of which have been largely debunked. The references that the article cites to back up it's arguments are a cross section of fringe-group websites and outright hate-sites (I have removed some so see article history). In addition, it assumes controversial theories as factual and does not contain any valuable information that is not found in Demographics of India Hkelkar 07:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Strong and Speedy Delete per above Hkelkar 07:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete Absolutely no premise for such an article. Is, as Hkelkar said, a POV fork of Demographics of India and contains Pseudoscience, presented ideas that the majority of Indians are Australoid or even Veddoid as fact. This is the version before Hkelkar and I pruned it. I believe pruning it can't fix this article, it has to go. No other ocuntry has such an article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is what will happen when you delete the article. A Caucasoid advocate such as User:Sugaar and User:VeritasetSeveritas will add to the Demographics of India article that India is clearly Caucasoid. Then I will have to add that there is debate over the subject. That is why this article was originally created. A while ago I felt as ya'll do that this is pseudo-science, so I removed a link from the Demographics India article to this one. As soon as I unlinked this article from the main demographics of India article, a Caucasoid advocate wrote that India was clearly Caucasoid, so I had to re-provide a link from that article to this one. After everyone decides to delete this article, I will be the one who has to guard the demographics India article because another Caucasoid advocate will try to violate WP:NPOV and push their views about race.--Dark Tichondrias 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the Caucasoid advocates comes back after this article is deleted, I will stand alone to argue with him/her. You people will not be there to argue with them. It is fine and good that ya'll feel this article should not exist because races don't exist or something, but this high-minded belief will only cause what it seeks to erase. Unless ya'll are willing to enforce this after the article is deleted, then it should stay. I will need the citations on this article in order argue and keep the subject representing all sides of the debate. The Caucasoid advocate will not listen to the oft said phrase "races don't exist" based on my word or that India is not clearly Caucasoid.--Dark Tichondrias 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those kinds of genetic studies have similar results applying to all racial/ethnic groups, not just Indians. But as race and ethnicity is socially, politically (and bureaucratically - there was a brief period in the 1970s (if I remember right) when South Asians in the US were defined as "white" by a government census department for practical administrative rather than sociological/anthropological reasons) defined, they are only part of the discourse, and not a defining part. Bwithh 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The genetic similarity of Humans is in debate between the 1994 Sforza study here and the 2006 Valaitas study here--Dark Tichondrias 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Eugenics was debunked 50 years ago, so get back in line. Black-Velvet 07:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Garbled with bad title, unreliable sourcing and context. and wtf is an "Imaginary Geoscientist"? Bwithh 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That source claimed to be a "geoscientist". Some other person down the line annexed the word "imaginary" to his title in order to discredit his views.--Dark Tichondrias 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no person called "Vatul Gothram", mentioned in the last para. The writer of the article does not even get the name right, the given link does not work, the writer does not even know what is 'gothram' ; he or she is under the impression that this refers to a person's name. Such a complete ignoramus has the cheek to write about 'racial groups in India'. If this writer can write about Indian society, then Bin Laden can become a Shakespeare professor. - Vijay

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

The result was delete. --

desat 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mike Barrett (politician)

Mike Barrett (politician) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Political candidate who lost, no other notability offered

Nuttah68 08:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 04:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Waterstreet

Waterstreet (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

original research. --Closeapple 08:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy deleted under A7 (fails to assert notability).

ROCKER★ 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Asia Exhibition

Asia Exhibition (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Fails

WP:WEB. SWAdair 08:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 04:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

NNMATH

NNMATH (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Fails

WP:WEB. SWAdair 08:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete per MER-C's comment - fails

13 13:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hidden Villages Online

Hidden Villages Online (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Abjectly fails

conflict of interest from its primary editor User:Hidden Village Online, whose user page I speedied as spam. At 23, fewer google hits than I've ever seen for an online game. No third-party references exist. —Cryptic 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. The original author blanked the article before the AFD ended, but nothing was merged from it, so delete it is. --

desat 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Malaysia Airlines Products and Services

Malaysia Airlines Products and Services (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This article reads too much as an advertisement, it does not serve any purpose other than serving as a glorification of the company, where such information is readily available on the company's webpage. le petit vagabond 08:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything worth keeping to Malaysia Airlines, then delete the resulting redirect (not a likely search term). MER-C 09:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As blatant advertising. Anything worth keeping could be merged I guess. Spinach Dip 10:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement. --
    e Ong (C | R) 10:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, as it reflects a good deal of information about the products and services for Malaysia Airline. It's just need to have cleanups so that it doesn't sound so much like an advertisement... Zack2007 11:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Information and blatant advertising is different, and I trust you know what the difference is. -le petit vagabond 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - I change my mind, transfer encyclopedic info into the main article, please. and delete this page.Zack2007 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer??

  • Should someone transfer the info to the malaysia airlines article before deleting it? Zack2007 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination and no other delete votes. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding animal

Exploding animal (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a painfully obvious copyvio from http://www.harrumph.com/tree.html, http://www.wowzone.com/whattree.htm, and quite a few other places. Shouldn't've been left to languish in Celtic astrology, either.. —Cryptic 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magick astrology

Magick astrology (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This is an exact duplicate of the Celtic astrology (history diff) article before all the fiction in that article was deleted. Not factual or encyclopedic. Orphan article, as well. (This is my first deletion proposal, so please tell me if I make any mistakes. Thanks!) --Kathryn NicDhàna 09:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Walpole Gazette

The Walpole Gazette (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable small newspaper, heavy indication of

WP:COI. Crunk 10:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

desat 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Critical Mass (rock band)

Critical Mass (rock band) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Fails

WP:COI. Crunk 10:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danscotheek Oh

Danscotheek Oh (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Not notable Ashadeofgrey 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above nomination: Google hits = 107, inc Wikipedia mirrors. Mentioned in other places on Wikipedia (cf

ЯEDVERS 10:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Metzinger

Bobby Metzinger (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Original research in entirety and not notable enough to ever achieve third-party verifiability beyond a stub. --Closeapple 10:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Delete Yeah, has some activity on google, but Peoria isn't exactly a huge deal (I'm from Champaign). Clearly mostly original research, would need to do much more to establish the notability of the subject; seems like he is into covering local sports teams. So are a lot of people. — Preceding
    Tractorkingsfan (talk • contribs
    )
  • Clear Delete no real notability per
    WP:BIO, close to an A7 speedy. Eluchil404 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --

desat 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Erect Nipples

Erect Nipples (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Erect nipples is not really a slang term as much as a physiological response. This article provides no useful information and may exist just to show two photos of breasts. Any useful scientific information is contained on the

Tractorkingsfan 10:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: You got it the wrong way around there, my friend. Black-Velvet 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC_
  • No way, no way, no way. That show is hilarious. Though I visited your user page, and must say I agree with you on the VU. That's the good shit. But I shouldn't have gotten away from the point, the article needs to go. And people have the right to be amused by whatever, so chuckle on folks.
    Tractorkingsfan 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment And a fine template it is. Disagreement to disagree disagreed upon.
Tractorkingsfan 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raketu

Raketu (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Software; fails

WP:SOFTWARE. Nehwyn 10:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Have you got any independent
reliable source stating that? --Nehwyn 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Point conceded. In the face of all the controversy surrounding Wikipedia, I must say that the community is rather strict about adherence to policy. I admit, after becoming more familiar with
    WP:SOFTWARE, that it's too early for this entry and will only resubmit after it gains verifiable public notability. Hazer 05:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's very fair and reasonable of you. --Nehwyn 07:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 05:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Zhang

John Zhang (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Typical Jeopardy! champion. Contestants on Jeopardy! are only notable if they have set major records on the show, or once they have transcended the show and become national news stories on their own. Unfortunately, Zhang has not done either. Delete. Andy Saunders 11:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quote deleted - prank by fellow fraternity brother.

Zhang has been recognized by Kentucky-area publications as well as a television interview that in the future may be broadcast on YouTube. Einsteiner06.

Comment: Verifiability is not the issue here. Notability is. Andy Saunders 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Was eliminated in the first of five rounds along with another 80 odd entrants, isnt notiable for any other reason, article only links to the Jeopardy list, user/user talk, and AfD. Gnangarra 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am John Zhang and some fellow frat bros did it as a prank. please delete it. thanks.

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsen Sheeno

Ramsen Sheeno (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

WP:MUSIC. I suggest deleting this unless and until notability is established. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Humberstone

Bryn Humberstone (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Likely failure of

WP:BIO. Nothing too reliable in the 250 or so ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 12:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • KEEP I'd just like to say that I really like chicken schnitzel! Oh, and also keep this article, I'm a teacher too, in Malaysia, and i really feel our profession does not get much recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPhilpott (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP You people sicken me, just because you have no respect for the teaching profession does not mean that others should not have the right to promote the profession. I can guarantee that this man has had a greater positive influence over more people than you negative idiots. If you believe that the only reason somebody would write about their teacher in a positive way was to gain a good mark or to give the teacher a promotion then you obviously went to a pretty sad school. SHAME ON YOU PEOPlE FOR NOT RECOGNISING AN INSPIRATIONAL CAREER!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffbriggs04 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nothing notable about him. Also, this article mentions he teaches at Trinity Grammar School. A recently speedy-deleted article, Anirudh Hattangadi (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anirudh Hattangadi), is an Australian soccer player who was a student at this same school. Author of this article also contributed to Jason Lee (Tennis Superstar), another Austrailian athelete, whose article is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lee (Tennis Superstar)). Seems like a group of friends are all getting together and writing vanity or hoax articles about themselves/each other. Wavy G 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah, what he said. Comment - either vanity or a student trying to get an A grade. Or a teacher trying to get a payrise. Or... oh forget it.
    Bubba hotep 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 07:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to assert notability. Smells like a vanity or creation by a fan, biut no place in an encyclopaedia. — Moondyne 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan page for teachers - what next --Michael Johnson 11:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bryn David Humberstone is a multi-award winning teacher in Australia. A Google search on Bryn Humberstone will reveal relatively few responses, such is the lack of recognition teachers receive in todays society, but that is in no way a fair measure as to the mark of the man himself.", ahahaha. Delete. Lankiveil 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEP You people sicken me, just because you have no respect for the teaching profession does not mean that others should not have the right to promote the profession. I can guarantee that this man has had a greater positive influence over more people than you negative idiots. If you believe that the only reason somebody would write about their teacher in a positive way was to gain a good mark or to give the teacher a promotion then you obviously went to a pretty sad school. As for the Jason Lee webpage, the reason this user created that page was because Jason Lee is a tennis player with significant performances in many events such as the Australian Open Grandslam junior division. I am sure that this is far more than you people will ever achieve.
As for Bryn Humberstone he is a great man who has managed to make maths enjoyable for year 10 to 12 students, surely this is a feat worth noting (it is maths afterall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nich20 (talk • contribs)
Comment, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a publicity agent. Lankiveil 09:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Additional comment having an effect on twelve students does not equate notability--in fact, I would say it is the exact opposite. He may be a great teacher, and kudos to him for whatever it is that he has done, but he does not meet the notablity requirements of Wikipedia. Wavy G 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This man is not notable at all sounds like self promotion, he gets kids to like maths, good for him where is the proof though. I had teachers who won awards too but there aren't articles about each of them. If it's not deleted it needs a big clean up, it sounds like it was writen by one of his students. Firelement85 07:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 12:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted - just scraped CSD-A1.

ЯEDVERS 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Brodcore

Brodcore (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Neologism. Zero ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 12:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close. This is Articles for deletion, not Wikipedia:Requested moves. There is already a discussion of this move at Talk:Tiger Stadium#Proposed_Move Uncle G 13:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Stadium

Tiger Stadium (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

It is proposed that Tiger Stadium be moved to Tiger Stadium (Detroit) as to disambiguate it from other Tiger Stadiums. This requires four steps:

  1. The current Tiger Stadium (Detroit) redirect be deleted.
  2. The current Tiger Stadium article be moved to Tiger Stadium (Detroit).
  3. Tiger Stadium (disambiguation) be moved to Tiger Stadium.
  4. Tiger Stadium (disambiguation) then be deleted. Flibirigit 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background info

Hmmmm.... I'm struggling to determine if when someone types in "Tiger Stadium", do they mean the baseball stadium or LSU's stadium? I also wonder what the Wikipedia precendence is for moving an article to a disambiguation page? I'd say that a MLB baseball stadium has more importance than a college football stadium, regardless of capacity, but I'm not sure about a closed-down baseball stadium.

I guess I'm not sure that all the work that went into moving "Tiger Stadium" to "Tiger Stadium (Detroit)" was worth it, or even appropriate. X96lee15 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a large reorganization should have been discussed first. Flibirigit 05:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing one of the two options.
  1. That Tiger Stadium (Detroit) as it exists to be deleted for the reasons, it does NOT INCLUDE the edit history of the Tiger Stadium article. These edit histories are essential to Wikipedia.
  2. That a
    REQmove be done to merge and perserve edit histories. Flibirigit 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Sorry for not discussing the "move" and sorry for not realizing how to properly move an article. I didn't think there would be anything controversial about the two major Tiger Stadiums agreeing not to hog the Tiger Stadium page. As for the edit history issue, I didn't think that would be a big deal. By moving Tiger Stadium to Tiger Stadium (Detroit), the old edit history would still always be at the original Tiger Stadium page for anyone who wanted to go back there looking for something. As you know, what I did was I cut-and-pasted the Tiger Stadium page over to Tiger Stadium Detroit. But I also did a google search to find all the instances of "Tiger Stadium" on wikipedia, and I went to a large number of those pages and changed the all links that pointed to Tiger Stadium and changed them so that they now point to Tiger Stadium (Detroit). Once again, sorry about that, but I didn't think it would be controversial. Anyway, the point is that this isn't something that is going to go away. In the years to come, more and more people will get frustrated by the fact that Detroit is hogging the Tiger Stadium page. Before the Tiger Stadium page was created on behalf of Detroit's Tiger Stadium, the creator should have searched the internet to make sure their wasn't any other major Tiger Stadium out there. Because of his or her negligence, that is why the situation is the way it is today. Wikiwopbop 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move

As per discussions above, I am inviting comments on whether the Tiger Stadium namespace should be the status quo, (reserved for the soon to be demolished baseball stadium in Detroit), or should it be switched to disambiguation page for all Tiger Stadiums. Please comment below. Thanks. Flibirigit 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switch Even though I am sentimentally attached to Tiger Stadium as a Detroit Tigers fan, I don't think a soon to be demolished stadium is prevalent enough to keep as a main namespace when there are other existing Tiger Stadiums. Flibirigit 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch I must admit that I am biased towards LSU and do a lot of work on LSU related pages, but the rational, unbiased side of me still believes that a switch to the disambiguation page is appropriate. Seancp 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch Granted that nobody outside the United States looking for "Tiger Stadium" is likely to know of the LSU stadium (or even of LSU or college sports in general), but if Tiger Stadium in Detroit is going to be demolished it shouldn't be the default. --Charlene 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --

desat 06:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

A Series of Unfortunate Events 2: In The Clutches of Count Olaf

A Series of Unfortunate Events 2: In The Clutches of Count Olaf (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

No such film listed on either imdb.com or boxofficemojo.com.

WP:NOT a crystal ball. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't say it was out of the question that he was in the movie, I said it was out of the question that nobody had heard it if he is. -Amarkov babble 16:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, then send to

desat 06:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The beard theorum

The beard theorum (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

ЯEDVERS 14:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People Eating Tasty Animals

People Eating Tasty Animals (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Non-notable webpage. It seems to have been created by one person and not updated since 1996. He did hold the domain peta.org for a while, but lost it to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a court case (sufficiently described in that page). There are about 90 000 Google hits for "People Eating Tasty Animals", but most of them are not related to this organization/website. Apoc2400 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suggest framing your delete argument in terms of
    WP:WEB criteria. Antonrojo 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, or if opinion is against outright keeping, Merge with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, specifially the external links sections. I agree that the case is dealt with with sufficently in that page, but this a good collection of links which I feel should be maintained. --Billpg 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether you feel strongly about ethical treatment of animals or not, this website parody is no more encyclopedic than any other parody, and less so than most.--
    Anthony.bradbury 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep or move to a section in PETA explaining domain-name conflict. --Falcorian (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already there, as thirty seconds of looking at the article would have shown you. It's been there since June 2005. Delete; domain-name squatters are a dime a dozen, and there's no reason for this one in particular to have an article. —Cryptic 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally feel this one isn't a "domain-name squatter";
      1. He got tech-news attention.
      2. He actually did something with the site, rather than just a "This domain for sale" page.
      3. PETA (... treatment of animals) were engaging the same practices they were suing over.
    • --Billpg 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable, and the website itself has been dormant for a long, long time - not relevant anymore. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article had described notable criticism of PETA (and there is quite a bit, especially from animal welfare organizations), it would have been better to merge the information in the main article for PETA. As it is it's just a description of a long-dead parody website. --Charlene 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a well know parody of PETA. --Deenoe 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known domain name conflict, well-known website. --- RockMFR 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main PETA article. The page doesn't seem to meet
    WP:WEB (or if it does, it does it just barely) and the topic is already well discussed there. JoshuaZ 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Notable PETA parody. dryguy 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedically non-notable and ephemeral website. Fails
    WP:WEB. This topic is already discussed in the main PETA article and doesn't need its own article (I personally don't think its notable enough for the main PETA article either...) Bwithh 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment (by original nominator): If this is actually notable, how about a move to Michael Doughney? This "organization" is just him anyway, and I think he was the owner of the domain. Also, what disturbs me is the disambiguation page at Peta. I think it gives this article undue attention, as it is very unlikely that someone searching for "peta" is really looking for this. --Apoc2400 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on the grounds that it is very notable. --Dennisthe2 08:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per JoshuaZ. Although this is an interesting example of domain-name hijacking that got a bit of attention at the time, it is adequately covered in the main PETA article. —Celithemis 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, obviously a well known "group." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google lists a total of 154 pages linking to http://www.mtd.com/tasty/ which has been the address since 1996. --Apoc2400 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that if the website was well known, there would be a lot more links to it. --Apoc2400 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it? It is 10 years old, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- ABigBlackMan 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Keep (my second choice). If merged, don't just add the external link, add a sentence or two to the article -- if there's no related text in the article, someone will likely delete it later on as irrelevant and possibly just spam. The legal dispute makes the content notable -- the question of whether it gets a standalone article or a section in the PETA article is a purely editorial, not delete/include, decision as I see it. --A. B. 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already related text in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. What, other than the link, are you suggesting be merged? —Celithemis 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, just add the link. Sorry. --A. B. 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Kamran Mirza

Syed Kamran Mirza (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

non notable internet personality (707 ghits), does not meet

ITAQALLAH 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bakaman Bakatalk 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - being cited in Mukto-Mona is notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't seem to have any official degree in Islamic studies nor has he an academic degree in Islam whatsoever. Being a convert to atheism doesn't make one notable. Being active in missionary also doesn't make one notable. There are many missionaries out there. What are the list of university-press published books that this person has written? --Aminz 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Critics of Islam are forced underground. Arrow740 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good riddance dude. 128.122.89.233 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most of the sources are unreliable ones, such as a link to a Yahoo group. Sfacets 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. As the creator of this article, I am now convinced that this article really serves no purpose that would benefit Wikipedia. However including critics names like Syed Kamran Mirza in other articles should be allowed. --Sefringle 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are allowed as long as you can prove that they are
reliable sources. BhaiSaab talk 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect seems harmless. W.marsh 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo to Basingstoke railway service

Waterloo to Basingstoke railway service (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Duplicate article with

South Western Main Line. A merge has been suggested, but this page doesn't seem to have any content that isn't already in the destination article and there is a consensus on the talk page for a merge or delete. The article's previous AfD was based on a different concern. Hut 8.5 14:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was already speedily deleted by

desat 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mamo

Mamo (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unimportant musician Missvain 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Holmström

Susanne Holmström (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Won an award for her thesis and is an external lecturer. Not enough for

WP:PROF. Leibniz 14:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm - IMO the entry seems to want an expansion, rather than a deletion.. She is even a board member of
EUPRERA and of the steering group of LOKE: Nordic network for research within organisational legitimisation and communication and her theories has had a certain impact with other academics around the world [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. She has also been published internationally in [22] and various peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Communication Management, Public Relations Review and Contatti. I vote Keep. --Thf1977 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Thf1977. --Oakshade 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

t 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

African American transsexuality

African American transsexuality (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article is composed of normative rather than factual statements (e.g. statements that African American transsexuals shouldn't be 'lumped together' with the community as a whole), original research about gender roles in the black community and general statements that would better belong in the

Transsexuality article. Antonrojo 15:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment I'm planning to merge some of this into the
    Transsexualism article and have copied some of the content to do so--of course anyone is welcome to merge anything I missed using a version before the AfD notice. Most of the references are general discussions/studies of gender roles and tranvestitism/homosexuality in the black community, or transsexuality in general and anything of value should be moved there. Antonrojo 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Atheist Forum

Atheist Forum (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable group, which sprung from a non-notable website. Prod tag previously removed. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Santana

Mikael Santana (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

nn musician Will (message ♪) 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Batman On Film

Batman On Film (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Acting on a help request. The user LibLord doesn't believe this site is important enough for inclusion. Peter O. (Talk) 16:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was G7, Speedied. --humblefool® 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Scallen

Shawn Scallen (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I have nominated this subject for deletion again (I am the creator of the article) because the subject of the article wrote to me asking for me to take it down, and he barely passed "notability" requirements so I don't see that the article should have to remain, in the interests of his privacy. He has also been blanking the page but bots have been reverting it. I would ask to Delete at this point. Thanks-- Dan Carkner 16:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

QWF

QWF (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

This seems to be a fake article. Creator seems to be a vandal. Google does not have any links besides Wikipedia and its mirrors.

Jungletiger 16:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Only 5 results on google [23] --Sbluen 18:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be non-notable topic. Hello32020 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that this is the only article the creator ever edited doesn't help vouch for it, either. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some kid at Manhattan College must have had a blast making this up. I would say "speedy delete" but the article has already been up for nearly a year. On that note, can we hold off on deleting this for a little while? I'm dying to find out who wins "Moustache of the Year" this year. Wavy G 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe if it grows into a more signifficant organization in t he future it can be kept, but right now it's like a little league wrestling group (I think I'll go into hiding now). --Oakshade 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 5 unique Ghits - which includes wiki and 2 mirrors - must say something. Surprised it remained undetected for so long. Ohconfucius 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edyta Sliwinska

discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

This article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. A DRV consensus overturned, finding that a role on Dancing with the Stars constituted an assertion of notability. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she should be in Wikipedia. I came to the site seeking information about the contestants. Wikipedia offers an infinite amount of shelf-space for articles. Why be a snob? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 66.92.34.166 (talk • contribs
) 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. —

13 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Adrian Simpson

Adrian Simpson (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I proded this article and deproded by the author. I suspect it is either vanity or hoax and even if genuine, the article would not meet

WP:BIO. In the original version, it was claimed that the subject was certified as a herpetologist at the age of 12 tears old! The author took exception to this, changed the dates on the article and added some definitions too try to prove his point. Delete. GringoInChile 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 09:43Z

Kris Mansour

Kris Mansour (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Appears to be a vanity page. The user who created it is named UGotItGear, which, coincidentally, is the name of one of Kris Mansour's businesses. The article appears to exist primarily to promote Mansour's blog and UGotItGear business. A Google search resulted mostly in links to myspace, the user's blog, and the user's personal website. - Walkiped 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Author has blanked everything but the external links, which qualifies it for Speedy Delete as db-empty. Fan-1967 02:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Abela

Lucas Abela (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Non-notable performer Swpb 17:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear Delete no assertion of passing
    WP:MUSIC. Eluchil404 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. W.marsh 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Canadian English words

Glossary of Canadian English words (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Collection of slang words, not verifiable, ill defined scope, can never be more than a list of words. Not encyclopedic HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator per

WP:SNOW. --NMChico24 21:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cirrus jet

Cirrus jet (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

This jet is still in the design phase with an undetermined release date and even undetermined specs. Borders on advertising, and is at best a "crystal ball" article about a product which doesn't even exist yet. NMChico24 17:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This company has plans to build this aircraft and even the announcement is affecting the market, whether it is built or not. I vote it should stay. Ahunt 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you could add references supporting this, that would greatly help. --NMChico24 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure - this aircraft under development has its own website describing the product and taking orders for it. Ahunt 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was actually requesting references from reliable, notable publications not related to the company itself, so that the product's notability and the effect on the market you mentioned can be established. Otherwise, the article is merely advertising a product. --NMChico24 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want independently reported information on this proposed aircraft then have a look at these stories on the independent aviation news source AvWeb [33] [34] [35] Ahunt 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article just needs improvement. I've done a little cleanup already that hopefully helps. --
    talk) 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Needs clean up and sources, not deletion. --Falcorian (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be cleaned up, shouldn't be deleted though. Hello32020 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and cleanup, needs to be improved further. References can be added to the article. --
    e Ong (C | R) 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidrus

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

This completely unsourced article (tagged as such for 10 months), consists largely of speculative

original research
. The lack of scholarly content is clearly characterized by the second sentence:

"Its exact location is not known for certain, but it must be in the lowlands."

Furthremore, it got only two ghits (in English), both of which pointed back to this article.Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Vidrus river" does indeeed turn up ghits that point to online texts of Ptolemy's Geography and the Annals of Tacitus. But the article needs references, and I have my doubts whether Vidrus should have its own article. Tubezone 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are provided.
    Kavadi carrier 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Currently seems like an original research. No sources confirm the content, not even the Weser River claim.--Húsönd 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll try and get verification for the etymology discussion, but the existence and relevance of the topic as such is beyond doubt. The fact that the identity of the river is not known doesn't mean it's not notable as a problem in historical geography. Turning that incertainty into an indication of "lack of scholarly content" is - sorry - bizarre. Scarcity of web sources in English isn't an argument either - it's not the type of subject where verifiability can or should be expected to be effortless. Its being unsourced for so long is unfortunate, but it's a well-written article on an interesting topic and evidently written by someone who had knowledge of relevant literature, we only need to find it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: a quick search, still only on the web, turns up that the matter has been discussed in the scholarly literature, at least by the 19th-cent. editor of Ptolemy's Geography in his critical apparatus ([36]), and by a Dutch author in a scholarly journal in the 1930s ([37]). Some further hints at modern discussions (in Dutch): [38], [39]. The etymological issue has almost certainly been treated somewhere too; old European river names is a topic where no stone has been left unturned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Piquant

Piquant (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

This looks like a dictionary definition. The author removed the prod tag. Sbluen 17:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Physics ping pong

What is notable about a ping pong game you made up in a Physics lesson? That's not what Wikipedia is for, sorry. LibLord 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Then again, it probably is. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia not for things made up in physics class. NawlinWiki 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per NawlinWiki. HEL 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this adds nothing to Wikipedia, as per all the above comments. Pete Fenelon 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Memphis Improvisational Theatre

Memphis Improvisational Theatre (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I stumbled on this one when seeing accusations on vandalism against this article. The "vandals" have been saying that no such organization actually exists and no performances have ever been given. Web searches find a lot of references, but every single one (their website, freewebs, myspace, forums, etc.) seems to have been written by the same person, the presumed head of this organization and author of this article, who has also removed questions or criticisms from the Talk page. In other words, massive

Not Notable if, in fact, it exists at all. Fan-1967 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was dead (delete). -

Mailer Diablo 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Not Quite Dead Yet

Not Quite Dead Yet (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested prod, fails

Fram 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: meets none of the criteria for musicians and ensembles, at least according to the article. "The following Saturday" is also a bit out of context. (Latter not criteria.) --
Gracenotes T § 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per

WP:CSK
, criteria 1, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions expressed.

Southeastern Connecticut

Southeastern Connecticut (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

While Connecticut does have a southeast, there is no generally recognized region "Southeast Connecticut." The term seems to be a neologism created by eager real estate brokers and chambers of commerce. In the absence of generally recognized regions of the state, it is not wikipedia's role to pick and promote some. Jd2718 20:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons. Most are tagged as unsourced.[reply]

  • Keep all. These are all legitimate articles. --- RockMFR 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Polaron has made some edits that, if continued and extended and combined with splitting some of the articles, could leave us with a set of useful articles about real regions in Connecticut. Jd2718 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

History of Rock and Roll

History of Rock and Roll (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Oriignal reasearch article overlapping at least two dozen other articles already on Wikipedia FuriousFreddy 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos

Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable book, less than 250 google hits for "Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos" -wikipedia. -

Review Me!) 21:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum: Only 187 google hits [42] . -
Review Me!) 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Treated as an uncontested PROD... article was probably a copy and paste anyway. W.marsh 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Vallance

Richard Vallance (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

That isn't a real article, maybe even copied at first view. Not formatted when started, just the look has been polish during 11 months. This is how the article looked after the IP finished its work. Amtiss, SNAFU ? 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London

Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Reason as in previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London. Complete hoax, and the actual Matthew Brown is a minor fraudster who is certainly not worthy of an article.--Berks105 21:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, 6 independent sources cited. Try again. -Amarkov babble 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources. Most only mention him very briefly, and nothing says he's a baronet. Read previous discussion. This is a complete hoax. --Berks105 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then REMOVE the hoax info, don't delete the entire article. I'm going to do that right now.
Im sorry, but he is not notable and if you read the discussion you would realise why. All the personal info is unreferance. He is a minor fraudster and has no place for a Wikipedia article. Read the article!--Berks105 21:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was not about whether or not he was notable, the article was deleted as a hoax. -Amarkov babble 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not entirely about that, but I still think he is notable. -Amarkov babble 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very, very minor fraudster is not notable. None of the Conservative info appears to be referenced, nor is any personal details. --Berks105 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit conflict] Delete per my rationale in the previous AfD. Being a baronet doesn't make one automatically notable, since there are an awful lot of them. Aside from that, he's not done anything notable whether or not he exists. I'd almost be tempted to move for a Speedy as this is reposted content (as far as I can remember the text of the previous article). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he were a baronet, he would be notable. ~~ Phoe talk 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
I don't quite see why. As I understand it, baronetcies aren't peerages, so he wouldn't just be notable for who he is. The bare fact of a baronetcy doesn't seem to satisfy
WP:BIO, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Starfleet Marine Corps

Starfleet Marine Corps (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Wholly conjectural organization; this entire page is speculation and a list of things that aren't Marines or might be Marines or could be Marines, etc. EEMeltonIV 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Starfleet Marines are an unconfirmed organization in the fictional Star Trek universe; no Marine organisation has ever been canonically shown in any Star Trek incarnation". The article admits original research and fan speculation in the first line! Delete as unverifiable by published sources. -- saberwyn 22:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. Darkspots 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend salvage (merge/move). There had been unusual marine-like character appearing as the article suggests. They are definitely separate from rest of Starfleet... --Cat out 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "definite", why isn't this separation cited in the article? The expression "Starfleet Marine [Corps]" itself isn't even a verifiable part of the franchise. In terms of people looking different -- i.e. different uniform -- I copy-and-pasted the relevant line into the
Starfleet Uniforms article. --EEMeltonIV 22:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yea thats what I meant by salvage. Recover anything that can be of any use. And instead of deleting maybe redirecting? (say to Starfleet uniforms perhaps) :) --Cat out 22:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Copyvio of http://www.yoga-age.com/asanas/neti.html. "Copyright @ 2003-2006 The Yoga-Age.com All rights reserved." Deletion is with no prejudice to a non-copyvio version being created of course. W.marsh 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sutra neti

Sutra neti (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Wikipedia is not a source of medical how-to advice. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge — Though the article needs cleanup, it does seem to be at least a bit notable. Suggest merge into another article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article on hand washing. This is nasal canal washing. I don't see the problem keeping it. (MartinGugino 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep. Gross as it may seem, it does exist. Maybe some of the instructional material needs to be removed, but I think it's a notable enough practice to have its own article. ... discospinster talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This isn't medical how to advice. — Omegatron 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Know practice in Ayurveda, article needs a cleanup though. STTW (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- STTW (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Glen  09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerball

Rockerball (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Made up sport, violates

WP:V, with a classic walled garden of articles, also included below. NawlinWiki
22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Also nominated:[reply]

Comment - erm, it's not exactly a peer review
Bubba hotep 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Response - First, I think that formatting is important to keep Wikipedia looking like an encyclopedia. Second, with others asking questions, the articles editors know what needs to be added and/or edited. RockerballAustralia 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article which you stated was peer-reviewed is related to the main article which is the main subject of the AfD. If that goes, any other related articles have to be deleted as well. The argument is that Rockerball is not notable as a subject, so whether the stats from 2006/7 are, is irrelevant. Hope this clarifies things.
Bubba hotep 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You are correct in your statement the the 2006/7 event is related to the main article. I still think that the main article can still be improved. RockerballAustralia 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be improved, you are correct. Stylistically (is that a word?) speaking. But that doesn't improve the notability of it all, does it? That is the crux of the matter.
Bubba hotep 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Selected classical guitar discography

Selected classical guitar discography (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

any selected classical guitar discography is clearly subjective. This is just not encycolopedic NHSavage 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legiones Redde

Legiones Redde (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A non-notable fan film. The fanfilms link shows only 283 hits since July. No sign of importance or popularity. IrishGuy talk 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the film has hit clost to 3000 hits according to vidiac and is being shown in High Schools thoughout EL Paso Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

A film made by high schoolers (correction: college students, my apologies) being shown in high school isn't notable. This meets none of the criteria of
WP:WEB or film notability. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

College students involved in a film organization is notable. This film was made from UT El Paso, not high schoolers. Their previous films where made during high school, but their new film was made in UT El Paso, and is being shown in local high schools, online, and other rome fan forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

Please illustrate how this meets
WP:WEB or film notability. College students making a film doesn't automatically make the film notable. People make low-to-no budget films all the time. They don't all get encyclopedia entries. IrishGuy talk 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. 1 Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the film name and where it is being shown. (From what I heard in a special features part of the film, it contained an article in the UT El Paso student newspaper known as "The Prospector") — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

If this is the case, please provide these sources. Additionally, a college student newspaper would not qualify as non-trivial. IrishGuy talk 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable student film made for a couple hundred bucks. Fails
    WP:WEB. I could barely find any relevant Google hits ["Legiones Redde"+"Robert Towne" (name of director/co-writer/co-star) gets three unique G-hits: the WP page, the fanfilms.net page, and an EarthLink page). -- Kicking222 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I don't know where the sources are, I'm not part of the organization. I could try sending an email to them but I don't know if they'll ever respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

And another thing, just because a film was made with little or no budget doesn't make it a bad film. Its about talent not money. The Blair With project was made with a regular camcorder and it's the most succesful Garage Movie Studio release. Its called Gurrila filmmaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

No one has said that low budget films are bad films, nor has anyone said this particular film was a bad film. How good or bad the film may be is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. IrishGuy talk 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, I will discuss this on the Towne Films forums to determine the ways how it does meet the criteria. You may delete at will while in the meantime i'll discuss this with other fansMaraJade85 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to amass others to disrupt Wikipedia as you did on the forums. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that on the forums we'll work on getting the finding the way to see the article meet the criteria. I'm not telling them to disrupt wikipedia, I'm just saying that like we'll figure something out later. Oh well, I rest my case.MaraJade85 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't know if it was any of you, but I won't pay any attention to any rascists here. Since someone wrote a comment on the forum. Now perhaps the other person I would agree with to a certain point, but this isn't just about degrading or upgrading, this is about whether someone can write an article about a piece of art that one found wonderful. Now obviously if that piece of art were made by my boyfriend, I would have no business making an article about it. However, if a 3rd party wrote it, that's the difference. I think some of you are concerned that because I am a fan of the movie, I have conflict of interest, but then if not a fan, who can write an article? Most articles here were written by fans of their subject matter. The film was approved to be on fanfilms.net, and has been shown for educational purposes in high schools, therefore it is notable imao. MaraJade85 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are definite criteria for inclusion. This subject meets none of them. As an active member of the forums, your authoring this article is a
conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 02:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

When I read what could not go on wikipedia, it stated clearly no advertising and no self-promotions. I have in no way promoted myself, and I don't wish to. I simply wrote an article about a film I liked. How then is that conflict of interest? I'm sure any of you would write articles about stuff you like, and how can this be considered advertising? It could if I told people to watch the film no matter what, but rather I took an analytic approach which discussed the films drawbacks and some of its historical innaccuracies. If that is considered advertising, then lets just delete the articles on other films since they discuss those films too, and while we're at it let's delete the article on the Arizona Cardinals since that article is advertising them. If all I did was praise the film and tell people beg people to watch it, then I could understand the advertising accusation. However, I took a non-partisan critical approach when I wrote the article. It is quite notable as I repeat, it has been showcased in high schools, online, it has a fanfilms.net listing (and that site does not accept all movies), it has been discussed in forums about Rome Total War and HBO's Rome, and furthermore, I found it. I don't even know these people personally, yet I found this film online and that's saying something because it would be different if I was a family member of someone in the production. However since I found it online, and so have others. In fact I've been excited about this film since like it was first announced, and this isn't just any ordinary home video, it took lots of months and to make and the filmmakers almost went broke putting their money in it, and I waited all those months and I saw the "making of" video which showed everything the filmmakers went through. Its an online movie, I love it, and I wrote this article about it. So where do we set the line between what people can write about and what they can't, between what one subjectively thinks is notable compared to what another person thinks is notable? Certainly this film has attracted attention beyond its local sphere, or else I would not have seen it, and it has been viewed in other places and discussed in other websites. Perhaps, since I'm only a fan of the movie, we need somebody else who hates the film to write the article...MaraJade85 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - For what it's worth, I did go broke moving house from Garden Grove, California to Bellevue, Washington on the train, arriving with little more than an unemployment check and $80 from my parents - but you don't see me putting my adventures up here on Wikipedia. Sorry, but "almost went broke" is not a sign of notability. As for where we draw the line on acceptability, the lines are very well drawn - read up the documentation here on Wikipedia. Start at Help:Contents and click on Getting Started for some good primers, and good luck. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't possibly be any clearer: being shown online and in a few high schools does not make it notable. It fails every level of criteria for inclusion. You have actively partaken in publicizing this film. Being a member of the forums and being the one responsible for submitting it to fanfilms.net makes your authorship of this article an extreme
conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete as a non-notable film. --Dennisthe2 08:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong, the film has hit clost to 3000 hits My
    Ebay store has more hits (heck, more sales) than that, I don't write Wikipedia articles about it. filmmakers almost went broke putting their money in it A LOT of people put piles of money into entertainment projects that never become notable. Occupational hazard. Delete. Tubezone 09:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garage movie studio

Garage movie studio (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This appears to be a

original research. Google hits for "Garage movie studio" garners 9 unique hits. Some of it might be merged to Independent film or something similar but it doesn't appear to be a noteworthy subject on its own. This article and Legiones Redde, a non-notable fan film also up for AfD, were created by the same editor and therefore this may be advertising. IrishGuy talk 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


This article was created a long time ago and basically explains more about garage movie studios which is a growing trend, and closely related to guerrilla filmmaking. If you want, you can merge those two articles since they share a lot in common... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

How is a term with 9 google hits a growing trend? People have been making low-to-no budget films from consumer super-8 cameras decades ago to VHS camcorders through todays digital camcorders. This article is
neologism. IrishGuy talk 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't coin the term, I first heard it from my professor. Using camcorders and stuff is what a garage movie studio is, and studios like Towne Films, ARCworks (or something like that I forgot the exact name but that's another studio I plan to do an article on) they do these films on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 November 2006

  • Delete non-notable term. When it circulates it's way into wide usage, then you can create this entry.
    - Tutmosis 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towne Films

Towne Films (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This appears to be a advertising and possible WP:VAIN. Google hits for "Towne Films" garners 42 unique hits, most of which have nothing to do with this subject. This article and Legiones Redde, a non-notable fan film also up for AfD, were created by the same editor. IrishGuy talk 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertisement, as a fan of this organization, I have nothing to gain about this. I don't even know these people, I just love their work and it deserves to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

On what basis does it deserve to have an article? How do they meet any criteria for inclusion? IrishGuy talk 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How then does any organization meet the criteria for inclusion? As a fan of the organization they already have a fanbase which makes them worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

Having a fan base isn't a criteria for inclusion. Many things have fan bases. How does this meet
WP:CORP? IrishGuy talk 22:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

it was in fanfilms.net, i submitted it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't meet the criteria. Submitting your own film hardly makes it independent. Additionally, a site which accepts all submissions isn't a notable independent distributor. IrishGuy talk 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its not my film its their film, and fanfilms.net does not accept every film, because I've submitted lots of other films before which were denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 November 2006

  • Comment Nevertheless, you are involved in a strong
    notability are two concepts with which you should familiarise yourself. Also, please sign your future comments with four tildes (~~~~). -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

According to this conflict of interest bit it says that I have to know the people personally. I've only seen these people online and read stuff on their website, I've never known them other than that. As a fan, I'm writing an article about it, just as say a Star Trek fan would write an article on Star Trek, or an Atomic Pink fan an article on Atomic Pink

I'm not pressing anything or ditributing anything, just writing an article about the group. And that's Atomic Pink, the girls rock band, not Atomic kittens whoever they are

  • Comment 1. You have failed to understand my analogy. You are, by your own admission, distributing this group's content. 2. We are now in danger of violating
    WP:POINT. 3. Again, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

How did I distribute the group's content? Obviously then we may as well delete the Chad Vader article since I contributed a lot to that.MaraJade85 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to amass others to disrupt Wikipedia as you did on the forums. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1. Quote: "it was in fanfilms.net, i submitted it there" 2. For the third time, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). 3. We are now violating both
    WP:POINT and my patience. This will be my last contribution to this discussion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Alright, I don't know if it was any of you, but I won't pay any attention to any rascists here. Since someone wrote a comment on the forum. Now perhaps the other person I would agree with to a certain point regarding the film that it may not belong with MGM, but this isn't just about degrading or upgrading, this is about whether someone can write an article about an organization piece of art that one is a fan of. Now obviously if this organization were made by my boyfriend, I would have no business making an article about it. However, if a 3rd party wrote it, that's the difference. I think some of you are concerned that because I am a fan of the franchise, I have conflict of interest, but then if not a fan, who can write an article? Most articles here were written by fans of their subject matter. The film was approved to be on fanfilms.net, and has been shown for educational purposes in high schools, therefore it is notable imao, however, since the film organization does not have any articles other than its listing in fanfilms.net, then I would consent to this article's deletion, though not to the others which have been around for a long time, and only today, after I decided to go ahead and do one for the organization as well, is this debate coming up.MaraJade85 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So where do we set the line between what people can write about and what they can't Wikipedia has reams of pages about guidelines of what's suitable to be included, and what's not. (This isn't.) Try reading some of them. Especially
    MySpace page, or a publicity venue. Lots of college kids do films, the vast majority aren't notable. Lots of videos and films get shown in high schools, few are notable. Try looking at it from a wider standpoint: Are people in , say, New Zealand or Nunavut going to go to Wikipedia to look up information on this film, because it's notable , or are you sticking an article in, hoping the same people run across it and develop an interest? Sorry, Two opposable thumbs down. Tubezone 09:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Actually there was someone on the Towne Films forums who was from Australia who looked up info on the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.247.152 (talk • contribs)

The entire forum has 19 members. While there may have been someone from outside the local community who showed interest in the film, the lack of membership shows that this isn't a widespread fanbase. IrishGuy talk 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taurophobia

del someone's

-phob-#Phobia lists before voting, if you have an urge to vote "keep". `'mikkanarxi 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Redirect. The article is unsourced, so there is nothing I can merge, but if someone wants to dig out the information from the edit history and include it in the main or an album page, be my guest. (But source first!) ~ trialsanderrors 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depeche Mode Instruments

Depeche Mode Instruments (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Contested ProD.

original research. According to the creator this content is originally from the Depeche Mode main page. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

;)
Bubba hotep 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I can agree to that. I'll be more than willing to add more information regarding the equipment used. Including the live equipment and guitars and such. Human historian 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, this article doesn't work on its own as is. If it were bigger and not a list, or if there was (sourced) information detailing themes that these instruments portray, I'd say "move to Depeche Mode instruments", but there isn't. Nihiltres 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen M. Jydstrup Elementary School

Helen M. Jydstrup Elementary School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links
)

Delete. NN elementary school. Does not meet the criteria under any of the proposed school guidelines. Yes, I did own a condo just up the street from the school. Vegaswikian 23:52, 11 November 2006

  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google searches turned up nothing helpful. JoshuaZ 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another elementary school article. I've given up on fighting the inclusionist policies on high schools no matter how much I disagree, but elementary schools? This is completely non-notable and doesn't even meet the proposed guidelines which have not yet been made policy because many feel they are too inclusionary, or so I believe. If the proposed guidelines are still considered too inclusionary by many and this doesn't even fit into those guidelines, shouldn't it go? --The Way 07:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This school is so non-notable that is notable in its non-notability. Denni ☯ 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no sourcing in the article, and no claims to
    GRBerry 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Keep Article at this point does not meet the
    WP:BITE, with no effort made whatsoever to guide the user to improve the article. Allow some time for a more comprehensive article to be created before jumping down a new user's throat. Alansohn 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep please school should be notable the communities it serves and surrounding area Yuckfoo 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of importance, no sign that any independent reliable sources exist. Shimeru 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominating an article for deletion within 3 hours of creation is flat out rude. See
    WP:BITE. As for the content of the article, it is perfectly verifiable, and multiple sources are now cited with thanks to Yuck. If there are any other problems with the article (policy problems) please let me know, I'd be glad to be of assistance. Silensor 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment the fact that it was nominated 26 minutes after being doesn't matter; elementary schools, quite frankly, almost are never notable enough. It's been a couple of days now, it still establishes no notability. --The Way 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Silensor, what criterion of
WP:SK does this AfD meet so as to warrant a speedy keep? -- Kicking222 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • comment Perhaps we need to reflect on the nature of their work. --
    Librarianofages 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pata

Speedied as A7, but probably isn't. Howls of protest on DRV, so sending here.--

Docg 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_11&oldid=1116878261"