Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 2

< November 1	November 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Franklin Coverup

One paragraph article about a non-notable conspiracy theory book. Something about satanist child-abusing politicians in Nebraska. The book gets 13,000 google hits, of which about 260 are unique. [1], Amazon rank is about 31,500, worldcat has it in 127 libraries out of 10,000. Google scholar has nine citations, none of them seem significant. [2] I can't find any mainstream reviews or press coverage that would speak to notability. GabrielF 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been linked to at

Catchpole 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete or Merge, no reason this has to have an article separate from the
Franklin Coverup Scandal.--Rosicrucian 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge likely search term Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone's personal crusade. NN. Tbeatty 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and controversial book which will definitely be expanded if given time. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Silence for another AFD that failed in a very similar and notable controversial film, banned by special interest groups. Joe1141 01:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Don't see any reason for separate article at the moment Bwithh 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Paul A. Bonacci articles should be merged in there as well. --MCB 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Straight Delete as the work fails
Morton devonshire 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, and redirect to
Franklin Coverup Scandal Brimba 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep see no basis for deletion at all. Note that WP:BK is not a guideline; it's a proposal that does not have consensus.
Derex 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Morton Devonshire and the fact that Wikipedia is not Barnes and Nobles, we do not need summaries of every book, hence it failing WP:BK. Author isnt notable, and the book didnt win any prestigious awards or break records or sell particularly well. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book. --SunStar Net 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For non-notability , the fact that the whole mess is covered in other articles, and that, frankly, as Tbetty said, it reads like someone's personal crusade --
--and we ain't no soapbox. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable book, per Morton. Wearing my anti-Satanic ritual heavy-gauge tinfoil turkey roaster hat. Edison 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect a likely search term, all relevant info already included in
rtinp23 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination, fails
WP:BK. - Crockspot 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, see
WP:BK#Criteria, the book is notable in its own right and satisfies at least a few of these criteria, having been reviewed by multiple noteworthy sources and being developed into a motion picture documentary that was then banned by special interest groups. Joe1141 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
The documentary Joe is referring to is Conspiracy of Silence, which was never aired on TV or released on video. It does not fulfill criterion 2 of WP:BK, which states "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres." If you have noteworthy reviews, by all means provide links. GabrielF 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not at all clear that the documentary is "adapted with attribution" from the book, or merely covers the same set of alleged events. --MCB 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into
Franklin Coverup Scandal. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable book. Redirect as logical search term.
JChap2007 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per AfD details. Drahcir^{my talk} 02:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book, don't see any reason for it to have an article here. --
T | C) 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nominated. Fails all points of
WP:BK. The worst part is that the book is written using an "alleged child sexual abuse ring organized for members of the political and financial elites of the United States". There are real people and families out there who are affected by this sort of stuff (believe it or not). JungleCat talk/contrib 02:58, 3 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 result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Freedom Caucus

Non-notable political activist group. No mentions in searches of major media sources. They seem to get talked about a little in blogs, but seem to not have any actual influence or mainstream recognition. Andrew Levine 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. wtfunkymonkey 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pcbene 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of natability cited. I found no mention of them in an online source of 4,000 publications. Google shows blogs. They do not claim to have elected officials from their group, or even to have put candidates on the ballot. Note: at
Prohibition party. Edison 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. In my mind, a group with some good ideas, but has not achieved any notability outside of the blogosphere. JGardner 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google News returns no hits for the term in quotes and the closest thing I could find to a reliable source was a comment on Daily Kos.
JChap2007 00:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the
RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm a fan of the Freespace games, but I just can't figure out why I would want to look this up in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a gaming wiki). Granted, it isn't really that much worse than, say, a list of Pokemon by name. However, consider that it's a list of fictional ships which aren't individually notable outside of the very narrow game context. Sorry, I'm inclined to recommend deletion. --Alan Au 08:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, game guide. Many of the red links were created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTF Apollo, which succeeded because, like this article, it is completely filled with game guide information that's only informative for players of the game. Mitaphane _talk 19:32, 5 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 result was Speedy Delete. I did not perform the delete, but the article no longer exists. -bobby 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Farkas

I've tried to mark this for a speedy (first for being a test page, secondly for no assertion of notability), which has resulted in a scattershot series of claims turning up to assert notability. Google's never heard of the gentleman in relation to his film/TV credits, which is perhaps unsurprising since he was 11 at the time of Home Alone 2 coming out and I can only recall the one cute child star. I should also add that I checked IMDB as well as doing a standard Google. What Google does throw up, though, is a personal homepage which is under construction and not much else, which makes the descent claims more than just a little iffy, and likewise the "promising scientist" claim. In terms of the medal he apparently received, I couldn't find any evidence of that either, but I'd almost have to wonder whether that's sufficient notability given the number of people who've been honoured for their roles in the aftermath of 9/11. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. Non-notable graduate student. Claims to being an actor are not confirmed by the Internet Movie Database, in which he is not listed. Article admits that he was among "thousands" of people who helped 9/11 victims. --Metropolitan90 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per one of my favorite essays,
WP:HOLE. Opabinia regalis 07:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO. I've had a good go at verifying this and haven't been able to find anything substantial. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - As
things that need to go bye bye ASAP. -bobby 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was Keep (feel free to move it now). Yomangani ^talk 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Holdings

Text is a little confusing, but to me, this seems like an advertisement that slipped through. --Czj 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable company per
WP:CORP. A google news search brings up nothing. --Daniel Olsen 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Office is a British High street shop, the article is not an advertisement it is giving a brief history of the company. Other British high street shops have articles written about them, such as Topshop, so this should not be a problem! -- Laura Davis
- None of those are valid arguments. "If article X then article Y." is a fundamentally flawed argument. If you want to make a valid argument, please
  WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep - thirty-odd stores around the UK is surely notable. Article may be better placed as something like Office (shoe shop) rather than the holding company. Eludium-q36 11:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid argument, either. Again, please cite sources to show that the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria, which (quite rightly) are not based upon the number of stores a company has. Uncle G 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Office is often cited as a retailer in the UK national press (Times
    WP:CORP 2.1. As noted earlier, it would perhaps be best to consider moving the article to concentrate on the shops rather than the holding company. Eludium-q36 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - I've seen an Office Holdings on my travels around the uk. If
ASDA or Londis gets an article, so should this. Think outside the box 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is their website: www.officeholdings.co.uk Think outside the box 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a google search gets quite a responce Think outside the box 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counting Google hits is not research, a company's web site does not satisfy the
WP:CORP criteria, and "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument. Please take your chosen name to heart and stop thinking of counting Google hits and "I've heard of it.". Uncle G 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I have also found articles regarding Office and Tom Hunter in the Financial Times, I have referenced these. I think that this should satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Laura Davis p.s thank you to Think outside the box for your enthusiasm.
That's much more like it. Although the articles that you are citing appear to be about Tom Hunter rather than about Office Holdings, and it is the latter that is required here, not the former. (You can use {{
BETDAQ#References for what you should be aiming for at minimum. That is how to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but move to whatever the shoe shop chain is called. A holding company is probably not notable but a chain of shoe stores likely has a much better claim. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the title/move the article yet as I am new to this I cannot find any info on how to do this, if anyone could tell me that would be great. Thanks. Laura Davis
- WP:RM. Eludium-q36 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Office is a feature of every other British high street. Big company. --SandyDancer 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable high street office shop. --Oakshade 07:39, 9 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 result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan 176°

No information was given at all as to why this particular vodka is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Wine & Spirit--sin-man 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - to Vodka. Although the alcoholic content makes this brand unique, an entry on the main vodka page will be more seen than an independent entry. -bobby 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - to Vodka.--Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Vodka is far too busy on it's own; notable for unusual alcohol content. Un focused 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete per
WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katamine

Contains insufficient indicia of notability, other than uncorroborated

WP:PEACOCK words. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Then redirect to Ketamine per Zetawoof.) --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete vanity. Edeans 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, but redirect/link to ketamine for spelling once this is over - it's a plausible misspelling. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verification, possible COI. After deletion, it can be recreated as a redirect to Ketamine, because it is a plausible misspelling.-- danntm ^T _C 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability provided since since Oct 23. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 9 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 result was Keep. NawlinWiki 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOHell

non-notable AOL add-on, hacking program, etc. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I recall copious press coverage of the software back when it was released in 1994. References online are few, but Salon mentions it in passing as a landmark of security problems on AOL. The article may indeed need work to improve its tone, but the subject is notable Booklegger 17:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Past notoriety does not imply current notability. Many events and fads were once popular, but only those with a lasting impact are notable enough for an encyclopedia. At most, this deserves a blurb in the history section on the AOL page. I don't think anything would be lost if it was outright deleted however. -bobby 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 132k Google hits, 12 years later? Good enough for me. Set precedent as ISP backdoor software. --Vossanova ^o< 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for posterity, very notable hacking program of its time. RFerreira 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable program per Booklegger, et. al. Once notable, always notable. hateless 04:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable and still remembered by many. Laid foundation for the AOL hacking scene, which is still active 12 years later. --Czj 07:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant point in public awareness of security issues. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first program to use the term "phishing"... significant to the history of the phishing article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it got significant press coverage when it first came out. Whisp e ring 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"'Keep"' people remember it to this day, and the contraction 'AOHell' is still used to this day.--AWB1986 22:25, 6 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 result was Keep. Nishkid 64 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim Road (Ottawa)

I tagged this for proposed deletion; this was removed as, apparently, not being from Ottawa, I am unqualified to comment on whether or not a three line article about a wholly unremarkable road deserves to be in Wikipedia. Refraining from expressing my opinion on that comment, this article fails

type 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I lived in the area for a while; Trim Road is not notable. I might as well write an article on Saddletown Circle NE or Heritage Drive SW. --Charlene 10:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Trim Road is in the growth area of The Capital of Canada,and the network of roads in the Ottawa area is one of the ways that articles on the NCR are being organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmacd123 (talk • contribs)
Delete - Roads typically aren't in need of their own article due to the lack of encyclopedic information on them. Wickethewok 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Roads are only notable if part of a provincial highway system. This isn't, and never was. Kirjtc2 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but remember Ontario's road system is very different. There are very few actual provincial highways in Ontario considering its size. There are however a sizable number of county roads or regional roads, which this falls under. Many of them are just if not more notable than your average tertiary highway in New Brunswick. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you assume provincial highways are notable, other roads are not. Frankly, if this sort of thing is deleted, we should also be deleting many of the provincial highway articles -- some of those highways really just are not significant. Skeezix1000 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it might not be necessary a notable route right now, it will definitely be in the upcoming years due to the rapid growth of Orleans and Cumberland. If the article is deleted it will likely be re-created in a year or two as major development is planned in the area of Trim Road and will be an equally important commuter route then neighborhing Tenth Line Road and the route will likely be equally notable then Innes Road the main E-W commuter route (besides the 174) in Orleans. So I suggest not to delete this.--JForget 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 'It's not notable but it will be in the future' is not a valid reason to keep an article.
  type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep This road is a notable road for being in Ottawa central; you wouldn't delete Trafalgar Square just because it's a road article, would you?? --SunStar Net 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no, being in the centre of Ottawa (or any city) doesn't magically confer notability.
  type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Apples and oranges. This isn't Portage and Main, Yonge Street, Bank Street or even the 174, it's a local suburban road. Kirjtc2 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proposal of the deletion of the route should be discussed among users of the WikiProject Ottawa instead as it was mentionned in the article history .--JForget 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Are they special Wikipedia users with special rights?
  type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

KEEP--and perhaps the recent comments on the WikiProject Ottawa site should also be considered. -- Bacl-presby 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Desk) 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Remember, Trim Road is a numbered highway, and unless we delete all those Texas Farm to Town Road articles, this should deffinately stay. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no reason given to keep the article.
type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Yes it is a reason. I am saying since debates such as these have been made about similar roads and have been kept, the same thing should apply here. What makes Texas more important than Canada? -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trim Road is designated as an Ottawa
biggest bus route (95). The article was updated to indicate these notability items. Dl2000 03:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment being a stop on a bus route is hardly sufficient notability.
type 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Important arterial road. Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Skeezix1000 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Arterial road meets all standards. Un focused 01:17, 4 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 result was Delete. 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Panos Armenakas

Seven year old child who is allegedly being courted by all manner of top football clubs. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it will be approximately ten years before he plays a professional match assuming he even makes it that far.... ChrisTheDude 09:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'cause you're only a wikizealot destroyer of all top-youngsters' articles. --necronudist 10:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, no I'm not (please be
  civil) and secondly, you can't vote that an article be kept solely on the grounds that you have a personal issue with me..... ChrisTheDude 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weak Keep He has been written about by numerous non-trivial third parties ([14], [15], [16], etc.), and I think the notability comes not as much from what he will do (which would be crystal balling) but from what the football clubs are doing about him (which is current), but I'm not adamant about it. --Charlene 10:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep too, as per Charlene. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:BIO. HornetMike 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete per HornetMike. It is just plain silly to include a seven year old because he is predicted to be something, and then eventually delete his article when he gets older if he didn't become that something. – Elisson • T • C • 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - its the silly season for child prospects. In these days of YouTube it is easy to get press coverage for a clever kid. Interest from big clubs is routine who vie to sign up alll sorts of kids as an insurance policy. Whether they make it is another matter. Fails
WP:BIO. BlueValour 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete -
WP:NOT a crystal ball. A seven year old? Next we'll be having talented football foetuses with their own articles. Stop the madness, now. Qwghlm 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete per nom. There are no citations in the article at all. --~~ElKevbo 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I would be inclined to change my "vote" to "Weak keep" if someone, anyone, were to show the least bit of initiative and add the above-cited references to the article. That no one has done so bodes ill for the future of this article and its maintenance. --ElKevbo 01:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate (but very poorly formatted) sources have been added to convince me this meets
WP:BIO. --ElKevbo 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because theres no citations? its obvious that theres mainstream sources so theoretically the article can be improved. User:Portillo

Weak Keep. This is not the only uncitated article in Wikipedia! So, this argument does not convince me. And I agree that the fact he is just a kid is problematic. But he is indeed a "notable kid"! As another user said, "notability comes not as much from what he will do (which would be crystal balling) but from what the football clubs are doing about him (which is current)". A person can be notable of what others are doing for him not just of what he actually accomplishes!--Yannismarou 10:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "vote" to delete was not based on the lack of citations. Rather, it was based on a lack of any assertions of noteability (as evidenced by a complete lack of citations). I note with interest that despite this discussion there are still no references in the article. I agree with those who assert that the youth of the subject is a non-issue and an extremely poor reason to delete the article. Lack of noteability is a very valid reason, however, and the one on which I have based my "vote." --ElKevbo 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BlueValour. -- Bpmullins 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: He is a kid! He has not played a professional game. He may be the next Pele, but until he actually plays a professional game he is simply not notable. -- MLD · T · C · @: 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: as per Yannismarou & Charlene. Many third party sources listed here! Flibirigit 00:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply dont see the logic. Football players on wikipedia do not neccesarily have to be professionals, think about it, the article list of child prodigys contains panos and juan carlos chera why? because they are sporting prodigys simple as that [17] portillo

Showing early skills doesn't make him a child prodigy in football - succesful footballers have much more - stamina, positioning, tactical awareness, speed etc. It is only in years to come that we will know if he also has these. BlueValour 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the reason he is a child football prodigy is because HE IS a child football prodigy, what do you think man u, barcelona and all these did with the video of juan chera? they obviously showed it to their high performance staff, or their youth development staff, its already been proven that he is a prodigy and i think its wrong for wiki to go against this, as you know the times, guardian, usa today and lots of other mainstream articles have mentioned already. portillo

Keep Another footballing prodigy, should keep since he is a child prodigy like so many others who are child prodigies in other fields. Kurt000 13:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per successful AfD process on Paolo Maldini's 9-years-old son. Should you decide to keep this article, you would definitely contradict yourself. --Angelo 00:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ No because maldinis son is not famous for being a good player, he is famous for he is maldinis son. Maradona has a son playing for napoli, doesnt mean he is notable. juan chera and panos is not the same situation as maldini jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portillo (talk • contribs)

- Comment for what I can know, tomorrow this kid could wake up and decide football is not that attracting, and switch to an engineering career. As well as Maldini's son, he's a
  crystal ball. --Angelo 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The reports from newspapers and sports broadcasters are representative of the media interest about Panos. You are missing the point that he is notable for what others have said or done about him, rather that what he has done, or may do himself. Flibirigit 13:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. I had never heard of him, but it seems the media has. Notable for what he is, but not the footballer that he might become. aLii 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above. He's not notable for what he might become but notable for what he is, which is a 7 year old boy who has attracted media attention and the interest of a hosts of clubs wanting to sign him. Englishrose 23:39, 6 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 result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brighton and Hove buses named after famous people

An astonishing example of...erm...buscruft. I've no objection to this being merged into the main article on the bus company if people feel it's worth saving, but - to be honest - I don't really think it is. The title has a whiff of

WP:DAFTness, too. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. This is amazingly non-notable. I was going to compliment the person who created the article on his remarkable enthusiasm for Brighton buses, but there are a whole list of editors. --Charlene 11:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose, but reluctantly. Whoever is in charge of selecting these names has a jaw-dropping breadth of imagination - Kitty O'Shea, Prince Petr Kropotkin, Gilbert Harding and Dusty Springfield all feature!. BTLizard 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The fact that the bus company name their busses is notable - I have never encountered it before. Put that fact in the bus company article along with a link to this list kept somewhere else. -- RHaworth 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article in The Guardian, article in The Argus another article in The Argus another article in The Argus picture of the bus named after
neither excessively narrow nor excessively broad in scope.
By the way, Jamaica does this, too. Uncle G 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into
Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company. I've seen named buses before, but not after famous people. Besides, it could be interesting for residents of the area. SteveLamacq43 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and don't merge. Whilst I agree with what Uncle G says about the verifiability and neutrality of the article, it remains non-notable as a subject for an article. The fact that the practice happens is quite enough information and so should go in the main article, especially since the bus company has a fairly extensive website of its own which already includes this list (and is likely to be more up to date than us) and even lists the manufacturers of each bus in the fleet! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's more information from secondary sources to be had than just the 1 sentence. From the cited articles we can source the fact that a competition was run to pick names for the buses, the fact that originally at least two alternatives were considered to using names of famous people, the 18 specific names that were added in April 2004, and the 19 specific names that were added in September 2005. Uncle G 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I make no dispute with your facts, but what's the value of that information? Just because there's information out there doesn't mean it's remotely appropriate for an encyclopædia. Those sources could be given as further reading from the main article, and besides, there's no reason why the mention which goes in the main article should only be one sentence as you seem to be concerned about. It could be several, but it should not, in my opinion, be a reproduction of the list which I stress is available on the bus company website. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You came close to answering your own question. The value of that particular information that I mentioned is context and detail, of course. It's more informative for the reader to know the history than just (to quote the article) "Since 1999 many of the buses have had the name of a famous person commemorated on the front.". Otherwise we might as well have articles like "Bill Clinton was President of the United States. There was a scandal.". Note that we are not discussing the article at hand (and I didn't say above that we were), but your assertion above that "the fact that the practice happens is quite enough information". It isn't enough information. Uncle G 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment – There is indeed a wider point at issue here. But to compare the importance or usefulness of the bus-naming policy of the Brighton and Hove Bus Company with the Presidency of Bill Clinton is not a realistic comparison. And (to discuss the article at hand) it is enough information for us here when the other (detail) information is available in the sources for people who want to dig. On the whole, Wikipedia doesn't feature sources copied out verbatim, but rather précis of those sources for the benefit of readers who want to retrieve the information efficiently. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a very realistic and pointed comparison. What you are missing is that your evaluation of the "importance or usefulness" of the information being discussed here is entirely subjective. I can imagine that there are people in Brighton and Hove for whom the scandal related to Bill Clinton is wholly unimportant and useless information that has no impact upon their lives, but to whom knowledge about the way that the local bus company names its buses is important and useful. (Read the very first sentence of the very first article that I cited, for example.) And the issue that we are discussing is not the copying out of primary sources (which I've not actually disagreed with you about and which is a perfectly good point). I explicitly wrote "secondary sources" above, and pointed out that there is material to be had from those secondary sources beyond "the fact that the practice happens", just as there is information to be had from secondary sources beyond the fact that "there was scandal". It turns out that it is about 3 paragraphs' worth. ☺ Uncle G 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll have to agree to differ (although I think we're somewhat talking about different things.) I defend my subjectivity though. The content of Wikipedia should be objective. Anybody's decision of what to contribute (and/or leave alone) is always subjective. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. but might mention in the article on the bus company. Edison 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bus company article. Was going to vote Keep as I object to lists being deleted (especially when the reasoning for doing so is that a category exists), however, there is more than one bus company that follows this practice (Ipswich Buses being one), so notability might be a sticking point Jcuk 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company. Oldelpaso 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as trivial and per above comments. Daview 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Brighton & Hove Bus Company. Interesting information for that article. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's too long to merge into the main article, but is wonderfully bizarre - we ought to have this information here. -- Beardo 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really notable. Not really particularly bizarre either - British locomotives have been named after famous people for many years. This is just too localised to be useful. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is too long for a merge, but is interesting as an article. I have referred to it a number of times and the editor list itself shows it is of interest. It has been covered in the National press and is noteworthy enough. Fork me 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that this is
lists of people for other purposes. Would this be different if we renamed the article list of people who feature on Brighton buses? If the answer is that it is too specific an audience you could drop the 'Brighton' part.Smiker 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Can't see why it fails - per Smiker. --SandyDancer 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. No encyclopedic relevance. Sandstein 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, meets all content policies. The links provide by Uncle G establish a level of coverage and interest that permits encyclopedic material to be written. The associated list of names is a useful addition to the article. No opinion on a merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:35, 8 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 result was Delete. Nishkid 64 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shared Wisdom

Delete this as

neologism dressed up as a dicdef of a common expression Ohconfucius 10:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. As per nom. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 10:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable terminology from a non-notable book.OfficeGirl 01:26, 3 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 result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

FlexSnap

Tagged G11 (spam) but contested. Reads like advertorial and fails to make the case for significance, creator has contributed little else, but that does not necessarily mean much. Still looks like a press release, though. Guy 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in understanding a proper procedure here, especially given the fact that there are a series of products that are given individual entries off of the Comparison of Image Viewers section. In fact, the FlexSnap edition also contains historical data and product development information. This seems to be a specific exclusion in light of other, very similar, if not identical entries. dedmond29 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam.
Danny Lilithborne 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis schaeffer

Appears to fall below

WP:BIO notability requirements. Only claims to notability are to have played a season in a minor rugby team, and worked as a presenter on a local radio station. Google searches for his name in combination with "rugby" and "radio" return no relevant results. Possibly speedyable under CSD-A7, but decided to open it up to fair debate. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Looks like self promotion. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 10:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Schaeffer is a quite notable Sydney identity and has a significant following in media circles. He has recieved a number of local business awards and has stood for election as a member for federal parliament.

Delete - first twenty ghits do not refer to this particular Dennis Schaeffer. That's very non-notable for a guy who "has a significant following in media circles". MER-C 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey one brave monkey you are a very brave non notable guy yourself. You don't seem to come up on a google search either in the first twenty hits. It seems that this particular dennis schaeffer is now number six on google hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.11.110 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete, jolly mix of db-bio, db-nonsense, and hoax. Weregerbil 11:18, 6 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 result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tummy Trouble

This page has no substantial content. jlao ⁰ ⁴ 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is poorly-written at present, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. The three Roger Rabbit shorts (this,
Trail Mix-Up) are clearly notable enough, being spin-offs of a major feature film. A screen shot, infobox and a bit of detail on the animators, director, etc. for each one would improve all three of these articles no end. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This passes
WP:NOTFILM. It was released theatrically as a "double bill" with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids per IMDB, and per disney.com was shown in every North American theatre that Honey was originally shown in. That means at the very least that it was released nationwide in two countries and was shown in 1,371 theatres, which is more than the one country and 200 theatres required by WP:NOTFILM. --Charlene 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep Many of the early Disney and Warner Brothers theatrical animated shorts have articles, and if anything their rarity after 1970 or so has made them more notable rather than less. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. —
talk) 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable and verifiable film. Just needs expansion, is all. 23skidoo 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New animated shorts prior to children's films, especially animated features, are fairly common today in the U.S., but were completely absent for decades prior to the Roger Rabbit shorts. -Acjelen 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - for clearly satisfying
film notability criteria. I would remind the nominator that poor article quality is not really grounds for deletion. -bobby 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I added 2 New York Times articles which discuss the importance of the film. It was a nostalgia blast in 1989 to see a cartoon before the movie, after many years of none. Edison 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone.
Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Soundtech

Notability disputed Dweller 11:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have created the article and listed it here for deletion in an attempt to resolve a dispute (here). Given this background, please try as hard as possible to keep this Afd civil. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. What's the background? - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, now I've seen the background. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - As an informal, self-appointed, interfering old wannabe mediator, it seems to me that I should not voice an opinion on this Afd. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:CORP — claims to notability are vague (what defines a "leading supplier"? who recognises them?) and originate from the company's own website. Demiurge 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I know I'm all involved in this and stuff, but this is a rather obvious failure of
Danny Lilithborne 13:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Clear failure of any evidence of importance. Some third party evidence would be needed. - Taxman ^Talk 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen the claims of notability, I'm even more convinced they are not important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article. Lets get all the Fortune 1000 covered before we write articles on mom and pops. I suggest a 100 million revenue minimum for corps to cover. - Taxman ^Talk 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability information - Below are various new notability signs about "Alice Soundtech"/"Alice Broadcast". -- 62.147.86.249 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From the Ofcom (Office of Communications, the UK's communications regulator, formerly Oftel) in a 1996 publication [18], "Competition Issues in Terrestrial Broadcast Transmission": " Chapter 2: market and competition analysis [...] Transmission equipment is increasingly being supplied by a few small specialist companies such as Alice Soundtech, SSVC and SBS, particularly to small independent radio stations with lower power transmission requirements. " [19]
- In an official application to the Ofcom (in order to get an FM radio license), the would-be director's resume says in section "Ability to maintain proposed service": " He moved to the UK in 1995 and has worked in high profile positions in the broadcast engineering sector ever since. At Alice Soundtech (1995-1998) he developed a good direct knowledge and relationship with many key players in UK broadcasting " (Given in this context, it means Alice is a "high profile position" well-known to the Ofcom people and namedropping them is supposed to be impressive.) (PDF)
- An independent assessment made by Radiquip (a radio equipment renting company): " Manufactured by Alice Broadcast Solutions the desk has proven popular with hospital radio stations for many years. Whilst its big sister the Alice Air 2000 desk is used extensively by ILR stations, the Series A has proven a popular choice for smaller community based stations, RSL's, and training studios around the world. " [20]
- From an independent press release of Bryant Broadcast: " Alice appoint Bryant Broadcast as a new distributor (5 Feb 2004) Bryant Broadcast has now become an official distributor for Alice Broadcast Products. In particular we stock a number of the more popular "PAK" boxes, which are widely used in edit suites, studios, etc. to 'mix-and-match' domestic and line level equipment. " [21]
- From independent reseller CP Sound: " Alice soundtech build problem solving boxes to interface unbalanced to balanced units, splitters and stereo source combiners for every eventuality. [The founder and owner of CP Sound] states that they are a very professional company and would recommmend using them where ever possible. " [22]
- From the resume of an executive at the UK branch of Radio Computing Services ("the world's leading provider of broadcast software"): " Ben has been at the forefront of technical supply and management in the UK broadcasting industry since 1990 when he joined Alice Soundtech plc, a turnkey broadcast equipment manufacturer and transmission provider. " [23]
- From the "The Creative Team" (graphic house that made their brochure): " A new brochure for Alice Broadcast Solutions, an established name in broadcasting, brought their extensive range into the 21st century " [24]
- From their own history page: " Alice was first company to produce 'off the shelf' broadcasting equipment in high volumes. This was a revolutionary concept for the industry " [25]
- It should be noted that of course, community or hospital radios rarely provide the list of their equipment, thus manufacturers in that branch aren't much visible, even if very present on a market. Thus, it's probably significative that we can still find quite some, such as:
  - From the UNESCO's "Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC; 23rd; New projects" about a "Production of radio programmes for young people on the rights of the child" project, equipment list: " Mixing table (Alice Soundtech A-3 inputs). " (PDF)
  - From "Chippenham Hospital Radio - Engineering - For the geeks among us" infos: " The mixing desk is probably the most important part of the studio - we use an Alice Soundtech Series A desk with 18 channels " [26] and " The old EELA desk [...] The New Alice Soundtech Desk " [27] (so that's the gear they have chosen when upgrading)
  - From "Hospital Radio Tunbridge Wells - Our Technology": " These are all connected together using an Alice Air 2000 mixing desk, which allows the presenter to be in complete control of the equipment. The output of the mixing desk is what the patients hear at their bedside. " [28]
  - From "Portsmouth Hospital Radio - Studio Three": " It houses a broadcast control desk (Alice Soundtech 'A' Series) " [29]
  - From "Ben Gamblin - Broadcasting" infos: " Alice Soundtech Series A Mixer Desk " [30]
  - In an official application to the Ofcom (in order to get an FM radio license), the "Flame FM on Wirral" radio lists its equipment: " Transmitter (Manufacturer) (model) Alice Soundtech GTx20 " (PDF)
  - From The Radio Magazine, in an article where some other company names are followed with an explanation, they are casually mentionned like all readers in this biz already know them: " Forever Broadcasting and Alice Soundtech PLC are backing the Splash FM bid " [31]
  - From the mailing list of the Community Media Association [32], a 2002 thread about "Broadcast equipment needed": " Resonance FM one of the UK pilot access stations is now buying its broadcast studio equipment - anyone selling or with knowledge of where to get quality broadcast desks and equipment secondhand please reply [...] Try Alice Soundtech... not exactly cheap but damn good gear. " [33]
- I'd add that I also stumbled on various yellow pages and catalogues in German, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, French, Polish, indirectly confirming their claim to be used internationally, such as their saying " a popular choice for smaller community based stations, RSL's, and training studios around the world ".

Keep - IMO, the official
WP:CORP alone, considering the governmental source and the fact that this domain isn't one popularly written about. And I think it's clear they're "an established name in broadcasting" to professionals in the radio business: being very notable inside a given domain is important even when relatively unknown to the main populace. (Full disclosure, I researched the above material. I am however not linked in any way with this company.) -- 62.147.86.249 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment

WP:RS. Demiurge 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Sounds like they make good mixers, boards and other audio equipment, but no articles are presented from, say the audio or broadcasting press to show notability even within one industry. And as for the claim "first company to produce 'off the shelf' broadcasting equipment in high volumes" one might check [34] to see many companies (RCA, Gates Radio, General Electric, Westinghouse, Collins Radio) supplying off the shelf broadcast equipment long before this company was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Edison 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN company. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-comments (in answer to Demiurge's comments):
- For one thing, since the Ofcom report is about a different topic (competition in the radio market), it is telling that some companies of mere hardware get mentionned at all. And for another thing, it's about the weight of the source: when Ofcom says those three companies are the main suppliers of transmission equipment, it provides a great authoritativeness to the information, regardless of the main topic of the document. IMO, this claim in a governmental document, that Alice is one of the main players, shows as much notability as three dedicated puff pieces in industry magazines. It's about the spirit of the notability criterion, not the letter: a non-notable, local company simply doesn't get mentionned as one of the three main players in an Ofcom document, whatever the main topic of said document.
- Another point about the "Ofcom criterion" would be: would accepting it open a Pandora box of hundreds of small companies being justified too? No: the Ofcom report mentions only three names. And those three companies Ofcom list as main players on this market, why wouldn't they be documented in Wikipedia? How can this market and domain and topic be covered on Wikipedia, if even the top 3 players named by the authoritative Ofcom aren't allowed on Wikipedia?
- "Catalogue entries and sales brochures" may not be admissible for their content itself (commercial hype), but they can still provide good hints, since we're not just talking about an abstract company but also its products and its sales. For instance, if a company's products can be found all over the world in all catalogues from resellers, then it does provide another sign of notability: a non-notable, local company's products just aren't sold and found everywhere.
- The other items aren't convincing by themselves, sure, but such accumulation of different sources help show there's something there, at least for casting a reasonable doubt against just immediately killing the article without further investigation. (If there's only a handful of highly specialized industry magazines, for a relatively very small readership, finding dedicated articles online is illusory, it'd require a professional to lookup specialized databases in his library.)
- -- 62.147.86.249 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More notability informations
- Infos from scholar papers (one full article, and plenty of mentions showing it's also quite used in labs):
  - In Broadcast Systems International (Vol. 16, pp. 46-7. Jan. 1990) a whole article entitled "Soundtech Series A mixer" about this product (search result, article content available only in library) -- that's all about one of their key product (Soundtech Series A on Alice's site).
  - In the thesis Features for Audio-Visual Speech Recognition (School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, September 1998) p.36 mentions: " [The recording] was adjusted for each talker through a Soundtech Series A audio mixing desk and fed to the video recorder. " [35]
  - In the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (Vol.46 1184-1196 October 2003), "The Influence of Phonemic Awareness Development on Acoustic Cue Weighting Strategies in Children's Speech Perception", the scientist mentions: " tokens were recorded onto digital audiotape (Sony, Model DTC-60ES) via microphone (Sony, Model ECM-77B) and amplifier (Alice Soundtech Plc, Model Mic-Amp-Pak 2) and were transferred to computer for analysis " [36]
  - In the thesis Implementation of an Interactive Mathematics Tutor utilising Participatory Design methods (cs.bath.ac.uk, 2005) p.53 mentions: " All sounds for the game were recorded as *.wav audio files through an Alice Soundtech Series A broadcast mixing desk using Cool Edit Pro 2.0. " [37]
- Infos from business news and books:
  - At Alacra, "The Premium
    WP:CORP
    publication.
  - At Alacra again, is sold a 1996 document entitled "Headline project for ASC" from Pro Sound News Europe that mentions " [...] fully equipped on-air studios together with Audionics matrix switchers, audio workstations and other equipment from Alice Soundtech. " (search result, content is premium)
  - In the book The Sound Production Handbook (by Don Atkinson, John Overton, Terry Cavagin, 1995), a book "covering basic sound theory and all aspects of sound operations within television and broadcasting", on page 191, "Appendix C: Television organizers and manufacturers", is listed "Alice Soundtech" (search result, content is premium) (book TOC)
- -- 62.147.86.249 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references cited in this discussion amount to nothing but passing references-- they are evidence that this is a real corporation, but not eveidence that the corporation is notable. And it appears from the history given that the article itself was created out of a motivation contrary to the spirit of
WP:POINT. This article is more of a directory entry than an article that anyone would truly learn from. Developing it further would only turn it into an advertisement. OfficeGirl 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Some more notability information
They operate some transmission sites for
TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio (from the Virgin Group
):
A large mast in Boston, Lincolnshire: " Boston is an Alice Soundtech site bringing the AM services of TalkSPORT and Virgin Radio to Lincolnshire and North Norfolk. " [38]

From 1993 to 2001, the 33 metres mast station in Swindon and others: " The site and equipment was owned by Virgin Radio and operated / maintained by Alice Soundtech. There were 5 sites like this (Swindon, Boston, Gatwick, Lydd and Pirbright (Guildford). " [39]

(This website is badly indexed by search engines, so there may be more.)

From the UK business directory Internet192: " Alice mixing consoles are the preferred choice of equipment for some 90% of radio stations [in the UK] " [40]

From the resume of 3TS Broadcasting's CEO: " Howard previously headed Alice Soundtech PLC (as Managing Director) the UK's largest Radio Broadcast Equipment Manufacturer and Turnkey Radio Studio Solutions company. " [41]

-- 62.147.39.76 10:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : the UK broadcast industry should be covered, and a few of its players, even if they're notable only inside this industry, rather than to the mass public. The topic of the UK's Independent Local Radio and Restricted Service Licence links to a few articles about UK local radios or TVs, but has not much background for the hardware industry behind it (mixing consoles and transmitters). The official Ofcom reports provides an authoritative source about which main players can have an article. -- 62.147.39.76 10:18, 6 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 result was Redirected to necrosis. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead tissue

No google hits at all for Radicaldelousious, likely hoax Seraphimblade 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect obvious hoax to necrosis. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxalicious. Delete as above. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. If they were going to make up a medical term, they should have used a standard medical suffix like -itis or -osis or -ectomy. "Radicaldelousious" sounds like it should mean "the state of being radically deloused". How can one be non-radically deloused? --Charlene 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious hoax. One of my friends who does GCSE History of Medicine verified this today, via email. --SunStar Net 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not even a very good hoax. --Dweller 15:34, 2 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 result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

ABS-CBN Stars

This is "list" highly irregular, Wikipedia doesn't have a

Kappa created it on November 3. What's next, List of BBC personalities? --Howard the Duck 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). The list is unencyclopedic importance and should be left for blogs and fansites.[reply

]

Note that this list was formerly at "

Kappa removed the prod templates. --Howard the Duck 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A notice of discussion is posted at

Tambayan Philippines. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I agree with the deletion. A better alternative would be, say, to categorize each individual star under the appropriate category. A separate page for this might be redundant considering that ABS-CBN has its own category. Or, a separate category (say, "ABS-CBN artists" may work, too. --- Tito Pao 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete i think my PROD speaks for itself. DesertSky85451 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, helps wikipedia readers find articles about notable people who appear on the channel and gives them some clue as to who they are and why they are notable.
Kappa 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, and it shouldn't be a directory of directories, either. Categorize the various "stars" per Tito Pao. OfficeGirl 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't categorizing them create a directory?
  Kappa 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is subject to change so maintaining it wll be hard. 23prootie 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is the point? --SandyDancer 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --
Danngarcia 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was speedily deleted per

WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Gamersfire.net

Contested PROD; does not appear to meet

WP:WEB. Joyous! | Talk 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:50, 2 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 result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Eve Online

Wikipedia is not a game guide. No other useful content otherwise. MER-C 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete or Merge to the main article of Eve Online. --Deenoe 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, it was originally split from
EVE Online due to the article becoming too large, this article does require some cleaning up, however I don't feel it deserves deletion. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. May need to be pared down a bit, but it was split off from the main article for good reason. If consensus is to delete, it might be more useful to merge some of the information back to the main article. The set of articles on
EVE Online should be kept to a minimum though: Main article, spaceships, and perhaps weapons. I don't want to see the category getting as cluttered as Runescape is. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Whatever information that should be kept - ie, very little, and generally only as it relates to gameplay - can be merged back, but really, the rest of this can go. There's not really any need for a whole article on this.
ee b (^chat/_patch) 11:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Zero external sources merits automatic deletion per
WP:NOT a game guide really so hard to understand? Sandstein 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
Desk) 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of CVG deletions. PresN 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. We simply don't need weapon lists.
ee b (^chat/_patch) 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Combination 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Big chunk of original research, this is. Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's fun to read, but that doesn't make the information notable or encyclopedic. Transwiki if there's an appropriate place to list this information, but Wikipedia isn't it. --Alan Au 09:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent of weapon lists. --- RockMFR 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you delete this people will add information back to original
WP:NOT
a game guide, I'm not sure if eevrybody has actually have read the article in question but it doesn't in anyway give hints, tips or instructions (ie a guide) for playing the game. I do agree though that it does lack external sources which can be added if the article is kept. 12:54, 7 November 2006
- It has stat tables. Stat tables. Garrett^Talk 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,
WP:NOT instruction manual/indiscriminate collection. I've kept a copy at StrategyWiki:EVE Online/Weapons; if people want more indepth information just link to that. Garrett^Talk 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Airviolence

dictionary definition, contested prod

QuiteUnusual 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The article calls itself slang, and by the lack of
rtinp23 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 06:14, 8 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, possibly merge pending discussion. Despite the numbers !voting delete, I don't think I've ignored consensus closing this AfD the way I have. Around the 5th/6th November the original research essay was removed, and replaced with the beginnings of an encyclopedic article. Many of the earlier !votes were based on the OR essay which no longer exists. There appears to be agreement that this is a subject worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia, and the article may need to be reduced to a stub and built up again with the content from
Steel 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Philosophy of probability

Essay / original research. I am prepared to accept the claim on the talk page that this is not a copyvio. Also would need a lot of work simply removing the HTML markup. -- RHaworth 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host, this IS original research. --SunStar Net 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could you say so firmly that is original research? Could you say what research is about? What is its subject? And what are the obtained theoretical results? It is in fact just an expanded definition of "philosophy of probability". The philosophical concepts can not be presented just like the mathematical ones - simply stated and in a standard manner. Any definition or presentation would look like an essay. I could give you all the bibliography for finding all ideas of the article in works of classics. It is nothing original there. --infarom
Oh wow. Delete.
Danny Lilithborne 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete but userfy at User:Infarom for the time being. I think that an article on the philosophy of probability (the meaning of statements cast in terms of probabilities, the epistemology of probability) is a valid subject. This reads too much like an essay for main encyclopedia space for the time being, but the author says that he has a bibliography he's prepared to add. I'd let him work on it a while longer and try again once he's done a bit more with it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a very brief proposal for a text to replace this one at Philosophy of probability/temp. I would happily invite Infarom and any others to continue to work on this. Not really my field, so others' contributions are most welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
reliable sources.--Isotope23 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and give the author a chance to improve the arcticle from an essay into an encyclopedic article. No need to be trigger happy since it does indeed appear that there is not a copyright violation at issue here. Give him a couple of weeks and then review whether it merits deletion. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Absolutely legitimate topic for an article, says someone who got a B.S. in Mathematics from a
GRBerry 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The only issue I have with userfying the article is that it makes it harder for it's development to be collaborative. Since the issue doesn't seem to be with the merits of having an article on this topic, why not leave it in article space while it is improved? Certainly, there are worse articles in article space on less useful topics than this...why the rush to move it out? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR. Arbusto 08:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infarom Guys, I made a brief from the article in question, I tried to put it in encyclopedic style. What else?

Try to set out the basic different philosophies. Start either with the oldest (
GRBerry 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep with modifications --- such as, adding Bayes, and others, plus tie better into the more non-mainstream elements on the Philo of Math discussions. As an aside, 'encyclopedia' is to be both broad and deep (that is comprehensive and complete). Now, as one who regularly uses 'wiki' as a pedagogical tool (yes, even for my own periods of pursuing edification), I cringe when I think that some want to limit what threads unravel within this environment. Some of the pages on 'wiki' are priceless in terms of collecting, aggregating, and presenting information - then, providing a launch point for further study. Now, this article is apropos to several items addressed on the Philo of Math page, such as this one and this, too. jmswtlk 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge - perhaps the content ought to be put into this page (Probability_theory#Philosophy_of_application_of_probability) or be the method to expand upon that topic. jmswtlk 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research, as above. Rray 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for math skills editors... or whatever. The user who created the article has created or edited several similar articles (like
Mathematics of gambling ), adding links to his own website. This site may be brilliant in its math, or not, but I wouldn't know. So perhaps someone technically skilled could look at other edits. Additions are original research and should get a delete as such, or perhaps a total stubbing of this article as it seems to merit an article, just not this one. 2005 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete agree with 2005, topic deserves an article, but this qualifies as OR and ought to be deleted. I have no problem with author rewriting new encyclopedic article on topic using reliable sources etc, in the future. Pete.Hurd 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Needs more work, but there may be references somewhere for the presently original research. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'deletes' and 'userfys' are growing. I haven't seen anything about what 'userfy' means or how this might be done. However, I do see that
GRBerry has a link to a recent essay that seems pertinent. Is the stub and develop method now not in vogue? I thought that one great characteristic of the 'wiki' way was collaboration and its potential. Will that benefit carry over to the 'userfy' mode? jmswtlk 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This page was created by a new user,
bite the newcomer and give him and others a chance to work this into an article. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Vote summary

I've not participated before in a deletion process, however I have experienced the 'deletion' event. Is it a simple majority vote? If we take 'userfy' as stronger than delete and allow that comment content overrides a 'delete' vote (meaning, the vote is dependent upon changes being made to the page), then the count (at the time of the time-stamp of this comment) is 7 deletes and 6 nots. Who mediates the controversy? This suggestion (Philosophy of probability/temp) by Smerdis of Tlön would be a very good starting article. jmswtlk 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of administrators who close AFD discussions. Sometimes they get closed early, if the article is shown to meet a
criteria for speedy keeping
, or the outcome just becomes totally obvious.

AFD is not a vote, although it sometimes gets treated as one. AFD is meant to be a discussion to measure consensus as to whether an article adheres to our policies and guidelines, or could be cleaned up to do so, or if instead it is unsalvagable and needs to be deleted. If everything was running on time, the clear closes would happen on the sixth day after the AFD discussion began, so November 8 in this case. AFD closure is a process that is normally backlogged, and it isn't unusual for the discussion to run a few days extra. This article is definitely evolving to be better.

Both the temp page and the current draft of the article have their points; they ought to be combined. I'd now say that this is far from being original research. It does need further work, but so does almost every article here.
GRBerry 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Note to administrators - The /temp page could be altered with content from the main page and be of value. Comments related to 'original research' may have applied to the initial contents; they cannot apply to the concept or its importance. Adding to my remark from above, I've noticed that 'wiki' now doesn't seem to allow time for evolution. No page, that I know of, manifested itself with 1 edit for which there was never a change. I can see jumping on vandalism. Why jump on someone proposing a topic even if the approach seems self-serving initially? By the way, when something is deleted, are the contents gone or are they still accessible in some log? jmswtlk 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can review deleted articles and/or undelete them. Regular users can't, except by making a request, the central spot for which is at
GRBerry 20:51, 7 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 10:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Funky J

Been tagged as unsourced with notability issues for over 2 weeks. Name pops up a few times on Google, but as far as I can tell, the hits are for a blog and an active forum member of the same name. I haven't been able to verify any of the information that would make him notable. --Onorem 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete on the basis that it just looks like one massive plug for the person. SteveLamacq43 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The page is
untrue, such as the alleged GreenPeace benefit in central Africa "to teach the Indigenous Peoples ( who which gave Funky the Alias Loco Gringo) of the benefits of recycling and replenishing our Mother Earth." (4 hits on google none of which are from GreenPeace). I'd speedy it, but I'm not sure there's quite enough nonsense. -bobby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - I don't see anything notable, unfortunately. --TheOtherBob 21:36, 3 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Parekh

Nikil Parekh looks at first glance to be notable, what with the many awards and 120,000 Google hits. However, looking through the many links from the page, it's noticeable that they are all to paid-for groups, blogs, the poet's own website, vanity presses and so forth. In other words, though a strenuous and successful self-promoter, there are no sources meeting
WP:BIO that substantiate the poet's notability. The record book mentioned is run by Coca-Cola in India as a promotional gimmick and does not check the "world records" it prints. Equally, it is noticeable that the poet's website lists his Wikipedia article as an achievement. Taken together with the article creator's work on Only as Life (also up for deletion), and his contributions to other articles and debate, I think there is some evidence of a walled garden being created. Vizjim 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong Keep of this great article on Nikhil Parekh- I really dont understand what's all this debate about Nikhil Parekh. People here who are trying to remove him from Wiki, are downright jealous , nothing else. Parekh, conforms with all WIKI guidelines, and he is indeed India's most famous poet. The Limca Book of Records is ranked only 2nd to Guinness Book. How can you say that its a mockery or something illegitimate. Its the biggest record book of its kind in India representing more than 1 billion Indians across the world. Parekh has entered it twice in a year. His other records are truly international. For instance, his awards at Preditors and Editors, Poemhunter, the EPPIE award which again is the highest honor given to ebooks today, are all noteworthy and to International standards. I think we must divert our energies to other people here at Wiki, rather than get after Parekh, after all what he's achieved. Wiki is not a ramification of enviousness for a particular person or in this case a notable poet. And how many times should I reiterate that I'm not Parekh, this is really outrageous and invokes some action against those who are saying so. I'm just doing my best to create and edit wiki pages, as per wiki standards. My aim is not to promote Parekh, but to ensure that the best stays here at Wiki. Before you comment please research. Atleast research Limca Book of Records in India, and you would find that its the biggest record book of its kind in India and only 2nd to guinness book in the World. And again as I'm iterating above, all of Parekh's other international awards and acclaim are truly prestigious. He's published in the Commonwealth Magazine, now would you call that a gimmick too. This is really outrageous and a downright mockery, an envious interpretation of a world famous poet, simply to tarnish his image here. I would implore Wiki people themselves to carry out extensive researches on Parekh before thinking of removing this wonderful wiki article on him. After all the success that he's attained has really done India proud and so the world. There's no point deliberating about his awards and acclaim, as research would show that its truly noteworthy. I feel its a situation as absurd as this, that next people would start challenging the credibility of the Booker or Pulitzer prize and then say that those who've won it are self promoting themselves , and should be removed from Wikipedia. Truly and irately preposterous. Coolkeg908 13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Coolkeg908's contribution history shows only contributions to debate on the name Parekh, creation of article on Nikhil Parekh, creation of article on poems by Nikhil Parekh, and insertion of Nikhil Parekh's name into various other articles, including one on the film Titanic. Vizjim 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting my argument-Well quite untrue. I have also edited sections on Poets, Poems, adding vital informations to other poetry communities, international poetry groups on the Internet. And, yes, I agree that my contributions have been mostly pertaining to Parekh. But what's wrong with that. I am a great reader of all his works and have researched several of his works thoroughly. I also see several several other wiki editors like me here, who have worked on a particular individual/person, as their research base on that person is almost picture perfect. In my case, I can say that about Parekh. Since I have studied thousands of pages on him over the Internet and elsewhere. I have studied him in national news, periodicals, websites, groups and have followed his poetic creations worldwide. Thus am emphatic to list his name at places here and contribute the most authentic information about him. So what's wrong in that. Which Wiki rule specifies that you cannot singularly contribute about a person. Or, as according to you, that if you do indeed contribute singularly about a specific person, then you yourself are that person. Its preposterous and absurd. Stop this babyish enviousness and concentrate upon the context of your debate. Wiki is not guided by personal enviousnesses or kidplay's of removing or keeping an article. It goes on articulately assembled facts and figures. May they be provided by anyone on earth, it doesnt matter. Facts and figures if they are legitimate and noteworthy, then Wiki would place them, irrespective of whatever bias people might have to this issue. And in Parekh's case, as I've also said above, the facts rule. His awards and international acclaim, his other records and stuff are simply incredible. Do thorough research Jim before you come to conclusions , come up with logical (not emotional arguments) to support your clauses and then suggest deletion . Best to you. I hate the prospect of this becoming a personally quagmired warfield here, rather than basing its judgements upon legitimate facts and figures concerning the poet. Coolkeg908 13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete and Comment Actually, we're not here to do the research for you. If certain editors want a page to exist, it's up to them to make sure that page meets the criteria for existing. This guy may be a great poet and you (and many others) may love his work, but all of that is 100% irrelevant. The question is simply: does his page contain enough information that is
notability. As it stands, even the notability of the Limca_Book_of_Records is in question. Without something outside this house of cards to support notability, delete. DMacks 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Supporting my argument for Limca Book of Records India, which lists Parekh as a World Record Holder- Jim you mention above, or rather make a mockery of Limca Book of Records India which is run on the patronage of Coca-Cola India. I just felt like putting my points forward regards this. Each country, most of the developed countries have their own book of records. India is almost the world's largest population. It has a more than a billion indians. Limca Book of Records is the only book after the Guinness Book of World Records in the world, in official world rankings. For a verification of this, please do various searches and research on Limca Book and you will know. It represents the pride and honor of more than a billion Indians. It documents all its records very scrupulously and verifies each of them to excruciating limits of detail and authenticity, just like guinness book of world records. I have known many other book of records like Singapore Book of Records documenting records by people of Singapore, then there's a Malaysian book of records documentiing records by people of Malaysia. But out of all them countrywise, the Limca Book of Records India is the only of its kind next to Guinness, as its been in operations since the last 17 yrs in India. The longest standing record book to Guinness Book in the World. All other record books of other countries are just a thing of recent past, maximum 4 to 5 yrs in existence. Limca Book of Records India is available from all major online outlets and across the World. A close look at its contents, spanning nearly more than 500 pages in each of its annual edition, would reveal that it goes to great depths to authenticate all its records and record holders and gives them record breakers certificates just like Guinness Book does. How can you say that it doesnt verify its world records. For that matter you'd say that every other record book , including Guinness, just lists its records without verifying them. Now this is really absurd. There's no record book born like that. They are all authentic in their own respects, representing their countries and bringing out the best of their countrymen , record breaking feats, chronicled in a book. Parekh is listed twice in Limca Book of Records . His website shows his National Certificate of Honor for his records with the Book. These are great honors from a great record book, that he's achieved for his poetry. Limca Book of World Records, Record holders regularly appear on all television programmes, media, all across the world, just like Guinness Book. Such is the significance of this book in which Parekh has been listed for two records in the space of 1 year. Next time, before you propound forward an argument or make a mockery of a world class organization such as Limca book of records, please come up with accurate facts and figures, otherwise such is considered unethical emotionalism. I agree, that the Limca Book of Records article here at Wiki is a stub, I have myself tried and expanded it . And am still working on the same, with my research on various things . Best, I'd propose, you buy a copy of the Limca Book of Records from any reputed store on the Internet, such as ebay, or amazon or the likes. Once you have the physical edition in your hands, and have seen the facts figures documented, the painstaking depths to which they've been researched just like Guinness, then please lay your suggestions here. I already have the physical edition of the book with me and am therefore speaking my opinions of the same, after witnessing more than 10000 records covering multitudinal spectrums of arts/culture and human achievement by more than 10000 record holders across India and of Indian origin. The very fact that Nikhil Parekh is listed twice in the Limca book of records, is a matter of great honor for the world. More specifically, both his records in the book, if you closely observed are for very prestigious categories. One for receiving and writing the most number of letters to World Leaders and Organizations and the other for being India's only Eppie award winner. Both International caliber records in an equally adept Record book of Indian origin, functioning as the largest of its kind in the country, since last 17 yrs. Coolkeg908 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a fair bit of research and perused
WP:BIO I'm on the Weak Delete side of the fence. It's a weak one because there are sources, but they appear to be self-publicising in nature. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
For the life of me, I cannot see any sources or things in his bio which are self publicizing. They are all facts assembled together to form a wiki sketch on him. Facts, just like assembled in several thousand other wiki articles of encyclopedic level. So what's wrong in highlighting the facts. And each wiki article for that matter appears a bit self publicizing, as it portrays the achievement of notable people/organizations and things. Its a strong keep, not weak delete. Unless, someone brings to light something unauthenticated in this article, or conflicting with the facts and figures involved, I dont think there's any reason to delete. Coolkeg908 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no opinion at this time, but I removed some links that didn't comply with
WP:EL, tagged it for copyediting, and tagged every claim that needs a source. If kept this article needs a lot of work to get to the point of being a decent encyclopedia article.--Isotope23 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete Yes, Nikhil Pareh gets twice as many Google hits as, say,
Yannis Ritsos. However, they appear to be mainly the result of self-promotion on a staggering, mind-bogging scale. There may be an achievement of sorts here, but it does not make him a notable poet. Stammer 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Opinion-Well when a person is famous, and when you google search him or search on him on virtually any search engine, virtually lacs of results come up. I have known poets better than Parekh, who have earned accolades and when searched upon in search engines, they yield lacs of results. So what, if Parekh yields lacs of results when searched. Thats thanks to his accolades. I've never seen anyone put in, what you call extra effort to make more search engine results. If you're well spread, in this case as his poems are published at countless websites, its ostensible that the search results would be mind boggling. Nothing wrong with that. Doesnt prove that he's self promoting. There are thousands of writers inferior/superior to him, who yield better results in search. That doesnt imply that they self promote or are bogus. Just that their work is well spread and well recognized, well affiliated and networked globally, that's why the mind boggling number of search results. Its perfectly OK. As far providing resources and authentication to all his awards a simple click to his website would pacify all queries. All certificates, original documentation and everything to the minutest of detail is listed here at his site, in the awards section of it. Also there are countless other places on the internet where the same can be verified in their original forms. Mind you, even the biggest names out there in the industry, who're writers/poets and creative writers of all kinds self promote, so in the first case there's nothing wrong with that. And, if there are lacs of search results to your name, that doesnt necessarily imply that you self promote. It is just that you are well networked/affiliated and published across the globe in countless magazines and websites, that they show up. The more famous an individual, the more are the search results on him. So what's odd. Why be envious or bring the emotional quotient again. There's no need to compare if Parekh has more search results to his name than his other contemporaries, or lesser than them. That's not the issue. Issue is verification and meeting WIKI standards. And research yields on Parekh, all that is said in his bio. Coolkeg908 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement. He has a very enthusiastic promotion department - as evident in this thread - but it's too bad that no reliable sources attesting to his notability under
WP:BIO have been forthcoming. Sandstein 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Opinion on your downright rudeness-Who gave you the right to call me a promotion department. I am just a fellow wiki editor like you here , authenticating information and leading to the most trusted sources to articles. Its downright rude and contemptuous of you to call me promotion department. I am just here and doing my best I can to authenticate information and provide as much editing as possible to the article, improving it and leading to the best sources of verification. If you have a comment to leave you are most welcome, or for that matter a counter argument. But this is no way of answering back and labeling someone as lower than you. We’re all equal rights here as wiki editors. Please don’t denigrate your fellow people who are also and equally trying their best to do their job. I hope you get my point. So lets stick to the credibility of this article and its verifications. And for verification of all of Parekh’s records and achievements his website as well countless other sources on the Internet can be looked upon . At a click verifications can be yielded. Those who say, things cannot be verified are being lacking information and not taking the pains to verify and research further. Anyways, please curb now from any name calling or rudeness. Thanks. Coolkeg908 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I didn't name any names - but if you do not want to be called a promotion department, it would probably help if your contributions also included at least some edits not related to the promotion of Nikhil Parekh. Sandstein 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ [Change of mind to delete - see below] He's gaining notice as a poetic blogger (rather than as a literary poet recognised by the establishment), but I don't see that he meets
WP:BIO with independent sources. Things like a two-line mention by Reuters in Oddly Enough [42] don't go far enough! Mereda 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete in that it mostly fails [WP:BIO]]. That's not to say that I disagree with Coolkeg908, but that the sources are almost all self-promoting, and the whole point of notability is that OTHERS note him independant of his own self-promotion efforts. Also, I must say that Coolkeg908 is taking this waaaaaaaaaaay too personally, and everyone needs to cool off. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
ergot 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:RS. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Poetry Books-His poetry books are not even mentioned in his biography. There is just an external link to them. Most poets, even the award winning ones here at Wiki self publish. And no, they are not vanity presses where he's published. Those places if you investigate and research further are major print on demand digitial marketplaces. The author doesnt pay a penny to publish. Its all technology oriented and making latest use of technology. Also this is only his list of publishers who've published him in book form. If you see the magazines and websites of the world that have published him, individually for his poems--then you'd come to know that there are names like the Commonwealth Magazine involved which are the best in the world today. Research, research and more research before basing your opinions. There's no point getting after someone without details, facts and figures. I iterate again. Books are just a part of his biography. There are several other aspects to it as well, like winning the EPPIE award for best poetry which is one of the most prestigious awards in the world today awarded to ebooks. Then he's there in the Limca Book of Records, refer to my discussion to that above. He's also featured in the top 10 rankings of Preditors and Editors readers poll, again a very prestigious readers poll in the world, which is also listed at Wiki. There's just too much to this poet as far as credibility is concerned and doesnt make a strong candidature for delete. Coolkeg908 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the page, the EPPIE award is barely "to him" at all, and virtually all the other things are unsubstantiated. Without external citations, that information can't be considered reliable at all. If there are awards and things that bolster this poet's claim to faim, now is the time for to prove it by adding info, including verifiable and reliable external citations, to the page. DMacks 08:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obviously fails WP:BIO with the sources, as pointed out, being self publicizing. If sources can be provided of awards and mentions that are not of this type please add them to the article and comment on my talk page and I will give my input a second look over. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coolkeg's behaviour rings alarm bells. --SandyDancer 01:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think this article is fine...i enjoyed it throughly...

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----),

We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry. Vizjim 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming weak delete. Without evidence that the Eppie award decision was substantially to him or based on his contribution to the compilation, I too see no notability as a poet. I don't think "first X ethnicity to in any way contribute to Y thing" is a point of more global renown. Which leaves the corresponding-with-leaders record. It's an interesting acchievement, but still fairly limited how truly notable that acchievement is in terms of
WP:BIO for the person. DMacks 06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Still weak Delete Upon inspection (see [43]) the "corresponding-with-leaders record" boils down to polite routine replies by their secretaries. The guy's persistence however is somewhat extraordinary. Stammer 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I hadn't even considered "responses" could include just "thanks for writing" form letters. Yeah, that's not so notable-sounding at all. DMacks 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Changed from weak delete] One EPPIE, for a piece with multiple authors, isn't impressive. Or does anyone want to argue for comprehensive coverage of all EPPIE winners? :) Mereda 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my above Delete per DMacks. Sandstein 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am still saying delete. --SandyDancer 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my above Delete; world record for writing a bunch of letters to heads of state? That just makes him a spammer.
ergot 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Even stronger delete I strongly doubt that everyone who holds a Guinness World Record has an article, much less the holder of some regional "world" record. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 02:04, 8 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 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas

Delete: The article contains original research, flamebait material, NPOV violation and one sided quotes.
Dharmic religions already cover this in detail. Freedom skies 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per nom. Title connotes superiority of Buddhadharma in comparison to other Dharmas. Merge relevant content (if any) to
Jainism and Hinduism. Sfacets 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete wouldn't envisage anyone looking for information on this subject would type in this title so the redirect isn't very useful and there are
Addhoc 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: this article has an interesting history. It was originally entitled
Buddhadharma back into a redirect to Buddhism. Anyway, I never saw much point in having this article around.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Buddhism and Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate of Buddhism and Hinduism and a potential Neo-Buddhist POV fork.Hkelkar 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : It must be done at the earliest. Buddhism is actually a protestant offshoot of Hinduism and may have remained under Hinduism's umbrella (like Sikhism & Jainism), had it not been for the fact that it is the principle religion in Thailand, Sri-Lanka, Japan, Cambodia, etc.IAF

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

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

The result was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ishi Yama Ryu

Non-notable - a single school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRehse (talk • contribs)

Delete - only 582 ghits. Unverifiable, no
reliable sources found. MER-C 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I reading the same article as you guys? Is read a modern sword style with a firm grounding in tradition. What school? Or is that in reference to the style? -
Desk) 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Clarification By one school I mean one dojo, one teacher. There is some controvery concerning background of the main teacher on the sword forums (apparantly there isn't much).Peter Rehse 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wwryxz 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It dies by its own sword. [89 unique Ghits. Sayonara. Ohconfucius 02:17, 6 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. kingboyk 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tye Pratt

I have proposed that this article should be deleted for failure to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. --TommyBoy 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless improved.
Addhoc 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. MER-C 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While his death was a sad thing for everyone who knew him, he is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --SunStar Net 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:NOT a memorial. Vizjim 12:58, 2 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 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of autological words

List of autological words was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autological words.

Delete or Revise to subsume all trivial categories into general headings (per Arvedui's suggestion). This list is meaningless, since hundreds of extremely trivial words can fit into this category. For example non-human is on the list. Infinite words can go in along those lines, all of them trivial, e.g. non-automotive, etc. It's almost as bad as having a list of rational numbers or words that start with S.

If the list is kept and revised, I think that the whole "depending on context" section should go; it's just as trivial (Sung-if sung) and doesn't really say much about the words themselves.JudahH 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) revised JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no. the "depending on context" section is good. in that context, they are then autological, they are valid examples. but i dont really see how "non-human" qualifies as a discription of a word. thats like saying "gill-less" is a description of a human. so then non-human also cannot be selfdescriptive. "Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word", suggested by Lecontejohn should do, since only that is effectively discriptive--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly what I mean--the plethora of valid but trivial examples is exactly what I think is the problem with this list. JudahH 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The adjectives here are actually used to refer to words. "Non-human" and other trivial examples are not generally used to refer to words. This is an interesting and useful list. - Sikon 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-human is currently an actual word on the list, as is inanimate. If you wanted to exclude the infinite trivial examples of that sort, that might make the list more interesting, but it would be hard to justify that, since they do conform to the definition of autological, despite being utterly trivial.JudahH 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the list as it stands is composed mainly of trivial examples, or that it will inevitably come to be dominated by them, despite the fact that virtually infinite trivial examples may exist. If you're concerned about the latter happening, then it would be enough to add a single-line entry to cover something like "all negative adjectives, such as non-purple, etc..." or perhaps add a short intro suggesting that people try to keep the entries "interesting". Currently the list is a concise, useful, effective and perfectly harmless demonstration of an obscure linguistic phenomenon, which is composed of far more interesting examples than not, and I think killing the article to save it from potential triviality is like killing a patient to save him from possibly catching the flu. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. While cute and interesting, it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 14:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete more interesting than the endless parade of "Lists of randomly cool shit", but still not encyclopedic.
Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree that this list is any less encyclopedic than, say, the Lists of career and job titles (and no I'm not calling for that one to be deleted either!). Lists in general can always be argued to be "un-encyclopedic" by themselves, but they still serve some useful functions (or why would people want to write them?), for example in collecting illustrative examples of a phenomenon without bogging down the actual article on the topic. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. AgentPeppermint 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one would search for this meshach 19:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you can't possibly know what all people would or wouldn't search for (or link to!). --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, there is a link to it from
Grelling-Nelson paradox.JudahH 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word - i.e. remove category errors. Lecontejohn 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think that would be a prerequisite for something to actually qualify as discriptive, hence also as autological.--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy Keep per the previous VfD discussion. I don't see that anything has changed in the 8 months between then and now, and the result back then was overwhelmingly to Keep. Listcruft rationale was soundly rejected in that discussion as well. --Arvedui 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that anything has changed; the problem with the earlier nomination is that it was nominated by someone who voted keep; therefore the case for deletion was never made to begin with. For what it's worth, I thought this was a useful list as well, until I realized how trivial the category autological was (basically all negative descriptions are autological, for a start). That is what I see as the important point, and it wasn't brought up at all in the previous discussion. JudahH 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you may be giving the act of nomination too much credit here... While the first nomination was made pre-emptively, it still resulted in a virtually unanimous vote to Keep, and I doubt it was the lack of a preamble calling the list pointless and trivial that determined that outcome--indeed many of the reasons people have voted Delete in this round were explicitly refuted in the last (listcruft, pointlessness, no-search, etc). Again, I grant that there are many trivial examples to be found, but it's easy enough (trivial, even!) to include them in general terms so as not to bog down the list as a whole while keeping the interesting part available for those who might want it. While this round of voting looks to me like No Concensus leaning towards Delete, I'm disappointed by how little weight is being given to the really overwhelming Keep vote granted earlier to what is essentially the identical list. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you may have a point about including them in general terms. That might actually be a good way to solve it. I'll change me vote. (Let just add, though, that it's not only negatives that are trivial. Practically the whole "depending on contexts" is, as well.) If you take out all the trivial examples, there isn't much left of the list... JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. `'mikkanarxi 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definite Keep, though probably it needs to be revised or mover to the wiktionaries apendices (as sugested when it was nominated for deletion before). its either an examples list, or a wiktionary thing. on the other hand, there are probably much more silly and trivial lists on wikipedia. and the risk of triviality on this page is no arguement, as that doesnt make the artical itself less desirable or encyclopedic.--Lygophile 14:23, 9 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 by NawlinWiki (a7) - Yomangani ^talk 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madis Pink

Non notable bio. Zero Google hits GilliamJF 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 12:52, 2 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 10:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

PARANOiA

When proposing the article for a merge, there was no response. This article seems to get very little attention, and is otherwise uninformative in WikiPedia. Therefore, I am putting this article up for deletion. Such things may only be known by people in the Dance Dance Revolution world, and not necessarily for the common WikiPedian.WaltCip 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to merge; Tracklists are already in each DDR version (or should be). However, having a niche focus isn't a reason for deletion; it's if that niche focus doesn't garner the attention of reliable sources, that the article should be deleted. ColourBurst 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trebor 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wwryxz 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing really to say about them; frankly I think that the MAX series articles should be deleted too. « _SCHLAGWERK ^{Talk to me!} 08:33, 5 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--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Omar Faruk

Violates
WP:AUTO, creator was Omarfaruk (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for the above. SteveLamacq43 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trebor 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE One of the references, an article dated April 11, 2006 which has only a passing reference to Faruk, says everything we need to know for this AfD:

"Mohammed Omar Faruk, 17, a high school junior who participated in one of NFTE's summer camp programs in Bedford-Stuyvesant, has since established several Internet businesses, including BlueStream Corp. , a Web services firm, and DesiFlames, a music site targeting the South Asian market.... Mohammed says he and a business partner have netted about $4,000 from their sites. He hopes to attend Babson College and thinks his experience with NFTE will help him achieve his dreams."

Just not notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Maybe in ten or twenty years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. OfficeGirl 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-- THE ABOVE REFERS TO A CERTIN EVENT HELD BY NFTE(03 NOV 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.195.136 (talk • contribs) 12:21, November 3, 2006

Note: It seems another incarnation of this article has already been created at
Omar faruk. Maybe it should be included in this discussion. DismasMama 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The other article is now a redirect. I should have been smart enough to do that when I saw it the first time.
GRBerry 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

SPEEDY and STRONG DELETE for both articles! Ozzykhan 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn.
ITAQALLAH 14:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, nn vanity meshach 19:21, 4 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. --
Steel 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

LGBT characters on The Simpsons

POV list mostly consists of unfounded claims and wild speculation, finding all sorts of obscure references to support the claim; see Akbar and Jeff section SteveLamacq43 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Chock full of OR and not really an encyclopedic topic. Wickethewok 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is
not for original research, and it is also NOT|not a crystal ball that can see into fictional character's hearts. -bobby 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Full of OR and similar articles have been deleted for the same reason. Also very little in terms of citations -- in what episode is it said that Springfield has a factory populated by gay men, for example? 23skidoo 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very one sided article, with far too much assuming and speculating. DavyJonesLocker 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who Cares!? It really staggers me that we have to make such a big thing of homosexuality. Jcuk 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to much
WP:OR, lacks analysis.-- danntm ^T _C 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. There's already a
List of characters from The Simpsons. Many (if not most) of those characters have their own articles, which can be included in Category:Fictional LGBT characters when appropriate. --Masamage 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above. Trebor 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:02, 3 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ragan

csd/a7 vanity page Tengwarian 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as i don't see any obvious sign that the page was created by the subject. On the face of it it looks like a fairly valid typographical stub, albeit one that perhaps needs beefing up a little. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OBM. -Jcbarr 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With respect, it's the responsibility of the page creator to show notability, otherwise Wikipedia becomes Who's Who. If there are citations that can justify this page, let's include them, otherwise I think it falls under 'non-notability' per csd/a7. Plenty of people design fonts. Tengwarian 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, vanity is a distinct claim from nn, so perhaps you clouded the argument to start. 2nd, while this is a topic I know nothing about and have even less interest in, he is referenced in 2 other articles, so notability is at least a debateable point. -Jcbarr 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xe didn't write "internal links". Xe wrote "citations". That means
Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies are satisfied. Neither the article nor this discussion currently contain any. Please cite sources. Uncle G 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, his work is solid, his clients equally so, this professions historically gives credit to apprentice work, and he has gone well beyond that. O, just realizing that I have been accused of writing this article about myself. I am not jesse ragan, do not know him, I am Jim Hood, a desigenr,and teacher. I woonder in this world do we get to face our accuser? Who has accused me of writing about myself? CApitol3 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that you were the subject, but rather that the subject does not meet the criteria for notability. There are thousands of professionals who do good work, but to include them all is to turn Wikipedia into a directory. If there is something to distinguish this person from the many other people at work in this field, such as a critical review in an established publication, I would ask that you include it in the listing. Tengwarian 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the tack has now changed from suggesting it is a vanity article created by subject, to now not being appropriately notable. Any chance you know this type designer? I Agree there are, thanks to software like Fontographer, countless numbers of people who could produce a technically functioning type. Those people do not recieve places on the American Institute of Graphic Arts' website. The subject's work is clearly acessible by links. CApitol3 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith here. My use of the phrase "vanity page" is consistent with its definition
here, and was not a personal attack. I do not know him (her?) personally, perhaps you do? Such accomplished contemporary American font designers as David Berlow, Cyrus Highsmith, and Sumner Stone have not merited Wikipedia entries, let alone Robert Hunter Middleton, Bruce Rogers, or Chauncey Griffith. And yes, I can go ahead and create these pages. But I still cannot see the significance of distinguishing this person over these others. With respect, I don't believe that a single award given by a trade organization to thousands of designers annually meets the standard for notability. At this point I think it's best that we leave this decision for the editors, since the Wikipedia docs state that there is "no consensus regarding notability." Yours respectfully, Tengwarian 07:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

An additional apology, GearedBull. I see further down on that page that "the use of the word 'vanity' is discouraged in deletion discussions." Please chalk this up to the awkward elbows of an old academic - I did not mean to offend! Tengwarian 07:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O, no harm done, but I'm disappointed that you continue to suggest I might know the subject. Please assume good faith when I have here twice, once on the article's discussion page, and once on your own discussion page professed I do not know the subject, and that I do not even know the subject's gender (though I would guess male given the ratio of type designers), or where s/he is geographically located (NY is my best guess, though Seattle comes up in some online returns). What I am more familiar with is the subject's work, which is what I based my article upon. Agree there should be a host of other articles: Robert Granjon, a longer bio for Anton Janson, more on Tschichold, and yes, I suppose Cyrus may have achieved more thus far, etc. But I don't see any precedence for thresholds (writing the big guys before the lessers). Wikipedians write about what they are more familiar with. In my own case here typfaces I have seen and worked with. Neil Macmillan's An A-Z of Type Designers, though not giving Ragan a full, separate entry mentions him as a co-creator of several typefaces. I will add that to the refs. The AIGA is not a commercial organization, this isn't an industry publication or award, pardon me if you already know that the AIGA is more akin to the American Institute of Architects than a commercial trade organization like Printing Industries of America, where the organization has a not very oblique reason for citing and awarding professionals: business. best, Jim CApitol3 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OBM --Arvedui 00:55, 8 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 Merge to Name-dropping. Yomangani ^talk 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namechecking

Procedural.
prod}} template, but this article has had a previous nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namechecking; full disclosure: the original AfD was started by me, again after Paul Cyr's proposed deletion was reverted) and shouldn't be deleted via the prod mechanism. Notwithstanding the procedural nature of this nomination, I recommend Delete as a nonnotable neologism with no sources or references. Powers ^T 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

article about a man who started a company to count brand-name dropping in hip-hop radio, Associated Press article about brand-name dropping in hip-hop, Detroit News article about brand-name dropping in hip-hop, article labelling 50 Cent the "biggest brand name dropping rapper of 2005", article in The Daily Trojan about companies paying rappers to drop brand names.
ISBN 0313261695 has 22 pages, an entire chapter, on "Brand names in the lyrics of American Hit Songs". — The only reason that this article has stood without any citations for 6 months is that in all of those months no-one appears to have spent the 5 minutes with Google Web that I spent to find those. If something cites no sources, spend the time to look for some before coming to AFD. Do the research when nominating articles for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment please do not confuse the populace by making a recommendation in a "procedural" nomination. - crztalk 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. If someone wants to add proper sources then I'll change my vote. However it's been over a year (not 6 months as Uncle G has said) without sources. Paul Cyr 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting from the first of the several times that you nominated the article for deletion. You already have several potential sources now. Go put them in the article yourself. Deletion won't do that, and it doesn't require administrator tools to improve the article in the way that you want it to be improved.
You're a Wikipedia editor. Edit! It no doubt took you more time to repeatedly nominate the article for deletion all of those times over the months than the 5 minutes it took with Google Web to find what is cited above. Uncle G 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Not that it invalidates your point, but do you mind telling me why you haven't simply added them yourself since you were the one who found the sources? Seems that would have been the simplest solution. And actually, after looking closer, it seems that none of those sources even contain the words "name checking" or "namechecking". It's starting to seem as just a neologism, and
Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Paul Cyr 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read words 2 to 5 of the article text. Uncle G 11:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And none of the sources show that. 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read your comment that was being replied to, and then read words 2 to 5 of the article text, again, to see what the reply is. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The second and third articles looked identical. The fourth I choose not to register to see. The fifth went 404 on me. The first two articles both used the phrase brand name dropping, so if the article remains it should be moved to that name. But merging into
GRBerry 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It appears that MediaPost requires a log-in if one isn't being referred to the article by Google, as I was. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Name-dropping. It seems to me that there is enough verifiable information for an article, but the problem is in the title. The articles provided by Uncle G would work in nicely over there; in fact there already exists a section that describes the phenomenon. (And I was about to mention the "linky no worky" before GRBerry beat me to it) --RoninBK_ETC 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've fixed the Daily Trojan link. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w Redirect per RoninBK --Arvedui 00:52, 8 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 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

John Witchel

Non-notable. The flash mob computing article mentions John but there is not much more that needs to be said, doesn't justify its own Wikipedia bio on those grounds alone. Stbalbach 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All relevant info already appears at flash mob computing. Otherwise, subject is NN. Caknuck 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO. Trebor 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability to justify separate article. OfficeGirl 02:17, 3 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 10:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

David A. Grimaldi

disputed PROD and speedy deletion. bio for NN-trader, featured in who's who delete DesertSky85451 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO. Trebor 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bio for NN-trader?????????? he is a member of the royal family of monaco —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Gheinz01 (talk • contribs
) at 00:36 on 3 November 2006.

Delete - As a non-notable trader, AND as non-notable minor royal --Aim Here 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Wikipedia is not Who's Who. He gets no points for being a prominent Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor (another name for salesman of Life Insurance & Investment products), no hits on the MS website which is cited for "David Grimaldi". Notability is not inherited. Ohconfucius 02:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

david a. grimaldi is a member of the monaco royals!!! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 68.174.163.153 (talk • contribs
) at 13:31 on 6 November 2006, and who keeps removing the AFD notice.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Informational management

Topic appears to be non-notable, original research, produced almost entirely by one editor who has provided no references.
Ronz 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not a well-recognized topic within management. No subsequent research by other scholars in the area. Rather, the discussion about IaM was not really mainstream at any time and related issues have been picked up. I will also note that neither of the references were peer-reviewed. It is not good encyclopedia policy to include such articles.

...it is very topical in the UK and SA and has academic acceptance. The references are public domain. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says right at the bottom that it's original research. --TheOtherBob 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...poor wording since corrected. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, vaguely defined. Google hits for the term did not seem concretely related to the content of this article. Dryman 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...12,900 hits/articles show the term is entering common use.Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the IaM concept is based on 'orginal' research, what subject isn't? At least at the beginning. Claude Shannon had to start somewhere. The original research for IaM has taken place over 30 years, several continents, many countries and countless companies. It is the result of work by several specialist devotees to the subject of information and has found special favour among all of the original commercial and academic users. I have little doubt that is becoming a key issue to all organisations that are embracing the new philosophies. Due to the nature of the developments and issues of intellectual property rights during the developments (trade marks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc), little public domain documentation was available until now. This will now change because many who have been exposed to Informational Management want to know its difference from Information Management right from the start, hence Wikipedia. The IaM concept as described is not proprietary. References that include rationales and details for IaM that are public domain include: 'Brain' 1975, and 'The future of life and intelligence' 1986? by Victor Serebriakoff - both available from Amazon.com (I will double check dates and add publishers shortly). I will also refine and add more detail as time permits. Considering the excitement it is causing in enterprise / information architecture environments such as TOGAF and X.25, I would have thought the entry would have created a desire to know more, not a desire to consign it to ignominy... Prof 7 13:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of "Serebriakoff 'Informational management'" returns no results. --
Ronz 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

...this term coined after the books were published although the books had the subject as their main theme. See discussion over suitable terms. Prof 7 09:19, 8 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 - Yomangani ^talk 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R Valdez

A blatant piece of public relations/advertising about a politician. Peter O. (Talk) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the articles Undecided Party ~~and Valdezian~~ {strike edit by Satori Son} are added to this nomination. The former should redirect to Swing vote if necessary. Peter O. (Talk) 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valdezian was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valdezian and has been deleted. -- Satori Son 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nn clown of politics. `'mikkanarxi 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both as political
WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 06:26, 8 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 - no reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources are found to prove notability, but since no attempt to add references has been made during the course of the AFD it currently doesn't make the grade. Yomangani ^talk 14:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Sai Premananda

Seems to be a promotional piece. No independent sources given, nothing much in incoming links. Previous nomination:
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Swami Sai Premananda. Delete kingboyk 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No independent sources listed and article reads like a promo, but he has 326 ghits, so he might be notable enough (many of the ghits are listings or point to his own website). I might not support deletion of an article on him which was less of a vanity piece, and which included independent sources … but this article is a clear delete. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that this article does not currently meet the requirements of the admins of Wikipedia. I would like to bring the article up to the required standard. The reason is because I do know Swami Sai Premananda and attend his free programs. As I see it, he is a public figure in Toronto offering services to the community, therefore they need an independant source of information about him. Before deleting, can someone give advice or direct me to information on bringing the article up to standard. -- talesh 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit the article to show why he meets the standards of
reliable sources. Sandstein 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. lacks notability. `'mikkanarxi 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:RS. Sandstein 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message - Currently we do not have a large number of reliable sources online to support our article. As such, we understand your wish to remove this article. If it comes to that, then we would abide by the rules of the Wikipedia administrators. However, when mainstream press reviews of Swamiji's book are available, or more online references from reliable sources show up, I believe that the requirements for notability will be fulfilled; at that time, we may or may not readd an entry on Swami Sai Premananda. Please let me know if this is a suitable solution for all. Thank you for keeping our article on your site thus far. talesh 21:34, 6 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, so kept by default - Yomangani ^talk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus

del since first nomination a year ago nothing has been done to prove that this is not
original research. `'mikkanarxi 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Uncited, with several POV statements as well. Compare with the male counterpart autofellatio which includes substantially more content. Suggest redirecting to autofellatio, and maybe adding a paragraph to that article about this subject -- but only if this isn't just a case of someone speculating "well, if guys can do it, what about women?" 23skidoo 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN, OR. Edison 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
Vfd, first Afd. Autocunnilingus seems like a myth, but it's well-known one and notable enough. The article is pretty well written and isn't trying to state that the practice of this is common or even possible. Compare to gerbilling. This has a Wikipedia article in six languages and the topic gets a lot of Google hits (autocunnilingus, "auto cunnilingus", selfcunnilingus, "self cunnilingus" etc.). Prolog 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per Prolog. Also, if we have an article on Autofellatio, it seems only reasonable that we would have one on the female counterpart. Yin and Yang if you will. -bobby 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Suggest it be built up as a sub-section on Oral sex for a time. If it's long enough then it can be budded off into an article on its own. If not the content's already part of an article and doesn't need to be merged into something. Win-win. Sockatume 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:OR. According to this guy, who ought to know, I have been searching for a long time for proof of that. I belong to a couple of groups on the internet who are also searching for it. We as a collective have yet to find any proof. I am positive that it can be done because if I were a woman I could reach. But yet there aren't any photographs out there other than some altered ones. I performed life-saving surgery on donkey punch but this has less cultural currency even though it's probably more "popular" in pornographic terms. --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Prolog, who nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prolog. -- Bpmullins 14:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article's picture is a wonderful sight. It has been saved to my hard drive. (I know this is not a valid reason, but I am still voting) Anomo 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your voting is an excellent reflection on your seriousness about Wikipedia. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The keepers-voters didn't do anything to disprove the major accusation: the article is original research and hence against wikipedia policies. Mukadderat 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Clean-up --SandyDancer 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable topic, possible or not. I am somewhat amused to find myself agreeing with Badlydrawnjeff in this discussion. --Improv 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have any of you "keep" voters looked for any sources? There is one source on this article, and you may not have realized it, but that source does not mention autocunnilingus. Or sex, period. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests we need to get more references, not delete the article. Sockatume 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prolog and agree with Sockatume's comment above --Arvedui 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Equal rights for womyn! -- Roman Czyborra 02:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--we kept it the last time, and I see no reason to go through this again.

Delete - Reviewing the VfD and AfD, all I see is a bunch of keep votes based on ... google hits. No sources. No PROOF that this can actually be done. Loads of hoax pictures. In the VfD the main reason repeated for keep was that this was a 'real, growing article'. It's a stub with a CARTOON drawing of a fantasy act that men want to believe in. Without FIRM proof, this fails
WP:OR. Voting 'clean up' or 'expand' is pointless, since nothing -- nothing -- has been done to do either since the VfD or 1st AfD. If this was about something from Scientology , or about Creationism, or something controversial that people hated the idea of, none of you would be voting keep based on the merits of the article. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't really care if it's possible or not, it could be included as a hoax/urban legend/whatever. But I see no reliable sources even saying that... just a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, forums and other classic signs that this is something people with internet access and time to kill care about, but no one else apparently. This has been tagged as needing sourcing for 8 months and no one could find anything... I'd close this as a delete but I'll leave it to another admin, this has serious
WP:V issues that need to be considered. --W.marsh 17:18, 9 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 (half notable?) - Yomangani ^talk 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valdezian

del nonnotable political neologism. `'mikkanarxi 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see 59 google hits, with no extra options. [44]. -
Desk) 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - Half notable. Doesn't really explain what it actually is in a specific manner though. Spawn Man 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V; article provides no reputable, reliable sources and I was unable to locate any. Almost every source I found used the term as a descriptor for something from the city of Valdez, Alaska. Also see the R Valdez related article up for deletion. -- Satori Son 06:25, 8 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 - Yomangani ^talk 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Renaissance art movement and related articles

A group of articles started by User:Sowff.

Ultra-Renaissance art movement, 507 Google results -- none indicate notability, many are unrelated.

USAID

Roy Zornow, 151 Google results, most of which are about Roy Zornow, an information architect

Brently Comstock, two Google results, both from ultra-renaissance.com

~~Mike Wrathell~~, 429 Google results, none of which indicate notability.

User:Sowff, who self-identifies as Mike Wrathell, has provided some references about the article on himself. I will check these references and if necessary, create a separate AfD. For now, I withdraw the article Mike Wrathell from this list. However, nomination for other articles remains. utcursch | talk 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Ultra-Renaissance art movement and merge the members into it. Then add cite. It is mentioned in an award-winning documentary and is mentioned in a few other places on the web. It is hard to judge where this type of thing stands in history because it looks like they are probably using irony of a sort to make themselves look less than they might be. We need citations and preferably a list of exhibitions. No one asked for the article to be improved before it went for afd, that seems problematic to me.--Buridan 13:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to this "art movement" being mentioned in an "award winning documentary" is found only on the website of the movement. The "few other places on the web" include blogs (some of which belong to these "ultra-renaissance" artists[45]), forums where these artists introduce themselves asking people to visit their website[46] and websites, where anybody can register and create a profile[47][48]. Also, many of the results are not related to this particular movement[49], [50] (If I am wrong, please correct me by providing some credible links). The "no one asked for the article to be improved" argument is baseless, as the article was taggged for want of references[51], but the tag was removed by the author, who has provided only one source: the website of the "art movement". Also, may I please ask you to explain what do you mean by "using irony of a sort to make themselves look less than they might be"? utcursch | talk 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Although many of the links appear to be self-referencing, I tend to give them the benefit of doubt; To give the article body, the separate artists need to be merged into it; as a whole ring of articles on this theme is too much Arnoutf 13:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article doesn't say much about the 'art' and explains neither the "ultra" nor gives a clue about connection to Renaissance. A catchy name ... well, I googled that someone already invented term "hyper-renaissance". Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per
WP:V, which clearly states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Satori Son 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all unless
Reliably sourced. User:Sowff self-identifies as Mike Wrathell, thus making this all autobiographical and vanity. (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ultra-Renaissance art movement) User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mike Wrathell references of some note added to Ultra-Renaissance and his entry, including favorable review of "the king of pluto" on FilmThreat.com, cast member of a new film called "W," and Juror's Statement from an international art contest, with art elsewhere on the site of Upstream People Gallery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) (creator of the articles)

Hi! Mike, None of the references provided by you have any information about Ultra-Renaissance art movement. Some of them are about the documentary film The King of Pluto, which according to you mentions the movement. Since you've provided some references about Mike Wrathell, I've removed from the list of articles nominated for deletion for now. utcursch | talk 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless credible sources are provided. --kingboyk 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, this smells like self-promotion - not the mention the lack of reliable sources for any claim to notability. Sandstein 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong Keep Marcel Duchamp once said, "Art is whatever the artist says it is." I have provided enough notable references to show that I am a true artist and it is my right as an artist, like Duchamp, to be a member of an art movement. Thus, The Ultra-Renaissance, is also valid by all known standards of art history. Dada, or Dadaism, was created and coined by the artists within the art movement. Likewise is the case for The Ultra-Renaissance. Let me ask you this, you naysayers: are you not tired of not having heard of any new art movements since Pop Art? It has been nearly 50 years since an art movement of note was on the scene. I am trying to help the world by injecting art into the public discourse. I have achieved some notability with my art, as acknowledged, even, by some people here. It seems only fair and logical that my art movement should also be accepted here, much like Linus and his blanket. Can you really separate Linus from his blanket and still have the internationally-known character? Or Schroeder from his piano? The accusation that my entries are mere self-promotion after I supplied references of note seems to be hyperbolic. Art is an important thing, and if I am attempting to bring art more into the public consciousness, I do not find that the act of an ego maniac. I assure you "The Ultra-Renaissance" was mentioned in "the king of pluto," and would be happy to mail Wikipedia a complimentary DVD of the documentary. A work of art I made with the help of fellow Ultra-Renaissance artist Tom Marchione was exhibited at 4 Star Gallery in Indianapolis, IN titled "Ultra-Renaissance Fountain," which is an homage to Marcel Duchamp. By the way, B. W. C., Roy Zornow, and Tom Marchione are all present on the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival page for "the king of pluto" so I hope that qualifies as a reference of note for them as well as for me and The Ultra-Renaissance itself. I understand that you need to see references and will try in the future to see that more references are generated for Ultra-Renaissance art. However, there are enough to justify keeping this "ring" on your site. The Ultra-Renaissance is a valid, living art movement. I just made a work of art last night with Tom Marchione, in fact. The Ultra-Renaissance is also present in "W, or Strange Things Begin To Happen When A Meteor Crashes In The Arizona Desert" in a scene where I am thrown into a spaceship bound for Pluto. The two cowboys who toss me in the ship at the orders of "W" are wearing Ultra-Renaissance tee shirts with the name of the movement on them as well as an image drawn by myself and Brently Comstock, aka, B. W. C. Sowff 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Note: The user Sowff self-identifies as Mike Wrathell (founder of the "art movement"), and is creator of the article. [reply]

I've already provided explanation here. utcursch | talk 10:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion. WP is not a place to obtain notability. Pavel Vozenilek 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pavel and
WP:Auto. --TheOtherBob 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

? I do not know how the issue of seeking notability has come up with a valid contemporary art movement. Are we to assume that all contemporary things are to be deleted since they may wish to obtain notability via WP? It seems like a downright blind acceptance of cynicism. I can appreciate a cynic, and always got a kick out Diogenes saying to Alexander, "Get out of my sunlight!" but I am also mindful of Nietzsche's axiom, "Greatness is being both cynical and innocent." If WP is to be a valid resource, I do not think the deletion of all contemporary references is in WP's best interest. WP's greatness is its very contemporary validity. To delete The Ultra-Renaissance art movement seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Sowff 04:17, 8 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'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Dyall

Non-notable Australian student in a relationship with actor Gary Sweet. -- Longhair\^talk 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia is a well known Australian celebrity. As well as appearing in TV shows including
Daily Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSmgmt (talk • contribs
)

Please provide a source for your claim that this person is a "well known Australian celebrity" because there are several Australians here who have never heard of her.
Talk) 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Apparently nn other than for relationship to actor. Merge content into Gary Sweet article, and then delete. -- The Anome 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hmmm, what does "GSmgmt" stand for? Gary Sweet's Management? Anyway, seems non-notable in the acting field - bit parts it looks like. Regular appearance in gossip columns do not maketh notable media references. --Canley 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for her name returns precisely 13 unique hits (two of which are here on Wikipedia)[52]. Not a good indicator - even a fairly minor celebrity should produce a few mentions on celebrity gossip sites and the like. Merge any useful, verifiable content into Gary Sweet per The Anome. ~Matticus ^T_C 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News comes up with nothing see [53]. Nor does Google News Archive [54]. There are seven articles in EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database which contain's seven articles all indicating that she is in a relationship with Gary Sweet. An article from the Sunday Herald Sun of 22 May 2005 states "They met on the set of Stingers, in which Nadia appeared briefly." Further, "But he's says life is good with Nadia, a marketing executive who used to work for Hockey Australia. She still plays in a team which Sweet manages." Worth a brief mention in the Gary Sweet article but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. information changes too regularly and is inaccurate. Who cares who Nadia is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.235.14 (talk • contribs)

Delete, being the partner of a notable actor is not notable in itself. Lankiveil 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Must delete, no relevence here. Is Gary Sweet even a celeb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.176 (talk • contribs) -- Longhair\^talk 12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not notable shop assistant, per nom.
Talk) 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete article. No place for shop attendents on Wikipedia.

Delete Shop attendent doesn't mean she is a celeb. Google search on gives back reference to wikipedia, and other infromation taken from this link. Delete ASAP.

As the main contributor of this site, please delete, it was created for publicity reasons for Nadia and therefore doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Delete. User:GSmgmt

Delete. non-notable. --Roisterer 12:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be Deleted and searches should be refered to Gary Sweet. GSmgmt 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)GSmgmt[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 There seems to be no support for deletion of this jazz singer from the 1920's. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Terry

Keep - subject is cited as important in the development of women in jazz, and that's just in the current article. Eludium-q36 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP and send to CLEANUP Great subject. Indications that good reference material can be had with small effort. Enriches the knowledge base of Wikipedia. Needs sources, cleanup and better writing, but can be a really great article. OfficeGirl 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why was this sent to AfD in the first place?
Wildthing61476 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm working on this, adding sources and editing. Please wait to evaluate after my edit. --Charlene 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you figure out what in the sam hill that man's photo was doing on the article (see early edits) please let me know on the article's talk page. Strange mystery to me. OfficeGirl 00:44, 3 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 - Yomangani ^talk 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia

Delete per outcome of
Havok (T/C/c) 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment sorry, but I don't see how that outcome is relavent to
Konst.able^Talk 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment They are both Wikipedias, and WoWWiki was removed due to
Havok (T/C/c) 09:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Abstain and comment I closed the WoWWiki AfD, but I said nothing about it setting a precedent for all other fan wikis, and in fact I did say that each one should be considered individually. As you very vocally wanted WoWWiki to be kept, I cannot help but wonder if you are just doing this because you weren't able to get what you wanted there (also your
Konst.able^Talk 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I would think that you as an admin would know
Havok (T/C/c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I think you're just trying to
make a point here by using one AFD to nominate a bunch of other wikis for deletion, especially seeing as Lostpedia was speedy kept because you nominated the day after the original AFD closed. Hbdragon88 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. Wookieepedia is a much more notable wiki. In addition to being one of
Wikia's most popular, extensive, and active wikis, it has been mentioned in multiple news sources. The Wookieepedian 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There are many articles already relating to Star Wars and it's characters. This particular article is nothing more than a fandom/nerd convention, and as such has no place on a respected encyclopedia/dictionary such as this! I would suggest the article has its own web page.

The Equaliser 11:17 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Wookieepedia is notable. WoWWiki isn't. --JimmyTheWig 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased keep: Wookieepedia's been through one AFD with a "Speedy keep" result, and Lostpedia's recently been undeleted, so Wikipedia clearly allows articles on notable fansite wikis. Are the policies being applied arbitrarily and inconsistently? Maybe, but nominating pages for deletion because you're unhappy about a similar page being deleted probably isn't the best way to go about fixing the policy. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please
Havok (T/C/c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize for assuming that was your motive: it was explicitly stated to be the motive by the last person to list Wookieepedia on AfD, which is why I jumped to conclusions. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that it can be seen as a act of "revenge", but in all honesty I still think a simple list of these Wiki's would suffice.
Havok (T/C/c) 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it DOES meet WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V. I'm actually rather disappointed in Havok for nominating this. It becomes very, very hard to assume good faith when your reason for nominating this makes no sense whatsoever. "I deleted an article on a non-notable politician from Ghana who didn't meet WP standards, so I might as well do the same to George Washington!" --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment On your user page you wrote 'Claiming that something is not notable is in effect contradictory. If someone notes that something is actually there, it makes that thing notable. And as such Wikipedia:Notability is the silliest guideline Wikipedia has.'. So isn't using WP:NN a touch hypocritical?--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please everybody, discuss the issue, not the people. Though in this case, it's important to remember that the issue is merely this article, not the greater issue of which Wiki to keep. If you want to handle that, I suggest going to
WP:WEB and working on a consensus there. FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep Wookieepedia is one of the largest wikipdia projects BS Guus 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wookieepedia is not a Wikipedia or Wikimedia project: it's hosted by
Wikia. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Wookiepedia definitely meet the WP:NN criteria. Been voted on before. Get over it.~ Brother William 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uber Strong Keep For one, I use and look at Wookieepedia every day. I am using it to help write a book. Star Wars is now a part of culture, and has millions of followers all over the world, so why delete its Wiki? its rather acurate and true. plus, what harm could be in leaving it? Very Very Strong Keep.~MasterRogue 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Wookiepedia won't be deleted by this proposal, merely its article on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if for no other reason than the bad faith nom of a user pushing a
WP:POINT. I do not buy the sudden change in heart. Resolute 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Merge with Star Wars. Sorry, but it fails WP:WEB. Anomo 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable. --
talk - email) 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. -- SFH 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be pushing
WP:POINT. StarNeptune 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per The Wookieepedian. If this site does not meet
WP:WEB then it is our guidelines that are failing us, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生
04:45, 4 November 2006

Keep. I don't see how this fails
WP:POINT in a discussion before, but my good faith is really being stretched on this one. BryanG^(talk) 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep per "I've had to explain tons of times that AfDs don't create strong precedents". The nomination fails to explain why WoWWiki's case is relevant in this case. From a cursory glance, Wookieepedia appears to satisfy
WP:WEB with flying colours. I'm not calling this a bad faith nom or anything, just pointing out that "this one was kept/deleted too" is not a deletion/keeping reason. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Abstain. I'd vote keep, but as a Wookieepedia admin, I think my vote would be biased. Besides, it has a
snowball's chance in hell of being deleted anyway. - Sikon 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. Wookiepedia is an important resource for the Star Wars community, and the wiki size and popularity should indicate that it has high degree of notability. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly popular wiki, thats won awards in the past. --217.65.158.118 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep, seems fairly notable. -MrFizyx 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems fairly notable. We wouldn't delete Wikipedia's article now would we? Spawn Man 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wookieepedian, wwwwolf. MikeWazowski 14:51, 8 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Hinduism

Reason Green23 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Delete, this article has too much original work
WP:OR, the entire section from Siddhartha to idol worship is UNSOURCED ORIGINAL WORK....the rest is grossly POV, although POV is not a criteria for deletion. But it will be tagged as such.--Green23 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This article is clearly in violation of WIKIPEDIA OFFICIAL POLICY
WP:OR
:

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.--Green23 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many sources in the article. Also Hinduism and Buddhism share a long history, each borrowing from the other. It is of interest to note the similarities of belief and practice as well as the differences. Also please refer to
Jainism and Hinduism, Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006. Sfacets 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, but rewrite.
Addhoc 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, encyclopedic language is required. I intended to get to it today though. The citations include sacred Buddhist canonical texts, world renowed authorities and Microsoft Encarta, to name a few. They're as good as anything you're likely to find on Wikipedia. The only one disputing the article is User:Green23, who has a history of vandalism prior to this article (see here) Freedom skies 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be improved, but it already provides some useful information and references. Stammer 17:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nomination reason is a good reason to cleanup and remove unsourced
WP:OR, but I don't think deletion is warrented. A discussion about Buddhism and Hinduism together can be a good article, it just needs a massive rewrite.--Isotope23 17:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Very important and notable topic in comparative religion. Those knowledgable and interested can continue to improve the article by editing. Edison 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Undeniable truth that Buddhism and Sikhism are Dharmic religions and connected to Hinduism in the same way that Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions and connected to Judaism.The details can be hashed out.Bad faith nom ("Nevertheless, the article will be tagged as such?????").Hkelkar 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Relationships between Buddhism and Hinduism.--TBCΦtalk? 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -
Islam and Christianity, etc. Bad faith nom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism cannot be denied, especially when Gautam Buddha himself was a Khshatriya Hindu. Syiem 06:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though this may not be a bad faith move by the sponsor, effects of cultures and religion in areas they intreact are often found.Article needs to be cleaned of [WP:OR] contributions that do not stand on reliable sources or who draw on sources that may not objectively study the topic (overly religious -nationalistic) sites.TerryJ-Ho 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Despite the User:Green23's bad faith nomination and acts of mindless, incessent vandalism I have cleaned up the article, used enclyclopedic language and provided more citations. The only task remaining is to check the article for repeated internal links, which I plan to get to ASAP. I hope a decision according to the required norms will be reached. Freedom skies 08:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite searching comparisons section signed up for this, and find this... very dubious sources, poor historical analysis, facts are incorrect. POV. --Saavak123 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was above users 5th edit, all of which were on Buddhism's relationships to other religions
Yes, Buddhism does have a comparison section right on the template, which is easier to edit all Buddhism sections... Your attempts to call people editing your edits "vandalism" has been reported. I research people thoroughly and have noted that you keep calling edits and dispute tags as vandalism in the History section.--Saavak123 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Green23, User:Saavak123 and User:216.254.121.169 are sockpuppets of the same person. They have the same patterns (see here and here) and what's worse is that this person has started voting in AfD debates (You'll notice that the only two delete votes are given by Green23 and Savak123 here). This is in addition to them having the number 23 common in their ID and the same contribution patterns. Please protect the article from excessive abuse by a user who is charged of sockpuppetery and guilty of violent, incessent vandalism.

Freedom skies 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - interesting article, although it is important to keep standards high with regards to sources. --Deodar 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, the ridiculous edit warring going on from both sides needs to stop. ThuranX 19:06, 4 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 - Yomangani ^talk 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Coulter

It's unclear that Lynn Coulter is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article yet. Furthermore, the article has at various times read like a resume or an advertisement. I have noted the issues on the talk page previously but there still seem to be problems. The primary author may be Lynn Coulter herself, editing via a user name and an IP account. A. B. 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has multiple reviews from reliable and independent sources, and is published by a reputable publisher, the University of North Carolina Press. I added the ISBN. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~. The sheer number of reviews cited reads like something you put on the back cover of your book, in violation of
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. This author does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I know too many people who have books through university presses. I wrote a book published by a larger publisher than that, but my bio does not deserve an article in Wikipeida. Also, because the article does not cite sources, it does read somewhat like an ad or the author's personal bio. The author may be totally innocent, but the way it's written comes across as something she, her publicist, or a meatpuppet wrote, not quite as an encyclopedic entry. The book itself might be worthy of a WikiBooks entry, but the author is not. Doczilla 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Change to neutral. Although I still question the notability, I can't see any harm in leaving this stub now that it's not a soapbox. The article may need monitoring. Whoever turned it into an ad once can do so again. Doczilla 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University presses publish a lot of scholarly books that are important but have limited press runs. Some also publish books for a broader market that they intend to make money on, as is the case here. I mentioned the name of the publisher mostly to show that it isn't a vanity press -- this is a book that both the author and the publisher will be making money on. The reviews themselves are sources, I think. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is still a résumé, although a much longer one than before; it isn't an encyclopedia article. It is conceivable that an encyclopedia article about Lynn Coulter could be written, if someone cares to put in the effort: so far, no one has. (Incidentally, the longest quote is copyrighted, and therefore needs to be deleted.) Andrew Dalby 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting an excerpt from a review is fair use. Almost all book reviews are copyright; including the copyright notice or an excerpt doesn't make it any more or less copyright. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, if it is an excerpt, there's no problem: just do a bit of editing and delete the word "Copyright". I raised the issue because I had the impression that this was the whole review. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN bio/resume. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to everyone that's commented pro and con so far. It looks like there are two issues -- notability, then the article itself. Right now there's no consensus yet one way or the other. Should a consensus to delete fail to emerge, I strongly believe this article should be cut way back to an encyclopedic stub free of
WP:OR, etc. Ms. Coulter (or preferably others) could then build it back one encyclopedic, non-vanity sentence at a time. I don't sense much appetite on anyone else's part to try to rework the big article for compliance. --A. B. 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll be glad to try when I'm at a terminal that can easily handle a massive restructuring, it actually won't be too difficult. I'm notoriously bad at follow-through on this sort of thing, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you rewrite, it, Jeff, I'll vote to keep. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm notoriously bad at follow-through on this sort of thing" <-- that sounds so very much like me! I suggest we vote on the article as it is during the AfD, not based on our hopes. If Jeff gets to it during that time, then we can evaluate the article with his edits. Otherwise, we evaluate it as is. That puts Jeff under less pressure. Having said this, my own personal opinion remains that the article article merits deletion on grounds of notability; if that's the case, then not even Jeff can fix it. If, however, the consensus is that Lynn Coulter is notable, then the article is worth preserving as a neutral stub until Jeff recreates it.--A. B. 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As things stand, I stick with my Delete vote given above. Andrew Dalby 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rewritten. It still needs work, but it's a viable stub now and doesn't read like a resume. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Jeff. A real transformation. After all that work, better keep it. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten; sufficient notability established in the article. Kudos to Jeff. -
ave) 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Mukadderat 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - she's clearly not a notable person --SandyDancer 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as rewritten, notability is now sufficiently established. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 4 November 2006

Keep. If she is best known for a book which ranks 78,460, she can't be all that notable. However, she does appear to fulfill the basic criterion in
WP:BIO for having received two, probably more, independently published reviews from reputable non-commercial sources, so I guess it's an obligatory "keep". Ohconfucius 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - Although my standard usually allow me to vote for people who have written at least 1 book, the article is kinda like a vainity article... Probably not notable yet, but she's published, so I'll have to say keep... Spawn Man 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rewrite isn't a resumé, but it still doesn't assert notability. —
gr 09:07, 8 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 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Council

non-notable student group Cornell Rockey 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. notable student group. Mukadderat 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is a subnational student federation rather than a state-wide or local one. Such groups tend to have lots of notable alumni. See the references for media coverage. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As some one who has participated in this group, I will tell you: its freaking useless, no matter who the alumni are. Cornell Rockey 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Seems even half notable & well presented... Spawn Man 04:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though it's unfortunate that Mr. Rockey did not enjoy his experience, one participant's unpleasent experience does not warrant a removal. If there are factual edits, please make them to the article. Echo comments re reference for media coverage. Primary author comments. Mjh40 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I said it was useless. you didn't deny it. Cornell Rockey 17:12, 9 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.

definitely not useless. The organization's work is more challenging and more innovative than most of what the Ivy universities see.

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMCO Sports Personality Of The Year

Contested prod. Completely non-notable event made up by some friends. Zero G hits other than Wikipedia. Fang Aili ^talk 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ghits for "Sports Personality Of The Year" largely go to the BBC award of the same name. Tourism site in "External links" section makes no mention of the tourney. NN & fails
WP:V. Caknuck 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Wikipedia is
not for things made up in school. The page is only notable to the individuals participating in the "events". Rather than using up Wikipedia's webspace, the participants should investigate free web hosting alternatives. -bobby 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Sporty Delete - Living in
WP:NOT. As a side note, AMCO is a bathroom retailer [55]
in the town. And one last thing:

“ Only Retfordians have won the title despite numerous challenges from else where ”

I haven't won the title - that alone makes it worthy for AfD! --tgheretford (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have sent an email to AMCO to see whether they have any affiliation with the event. --tgheretford (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad delete - I agree with all of the above, but alas, the tournament sounds like fun & keeping it would only allow a vanished dream to but echoe in my exsistance.... *Cry*... Spawn Man 04:21, 8 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 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham Baptist Church

Non-notable church, and no assertion of notability. 72 unique G hits. Fang Aili ^talk 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be
notable. Hello32020 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources satisfying
GRBerry 02:30, 5 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 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Feezy

Editor removed {{
TC 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Spam. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
spam. Hello32020 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as a non-notable biography,
WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY all refer. (aeropagitica) 18:44, 3 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 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anax Imperator (band)

Obscure defunct Norwegian electrogoth band; album self-produced/released, an EP and some festival compilation appearances about it; music by most accounts pretty horrible. May have survived an AFD somewhere back in the mists of early Wikipedia time. Time to get rid of them? Brianyoumans 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a negative review was a deletion criterion, there wouldn't be a band, album, book or film left on the site. Ac@osr 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keppp good to have obscure. it is history of music. Mukadderat 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, delete, nothing indicates the meeting of
WP:MUSIC guidelines. Punkmorten 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Doesn't matter how bad it is. In my view, people who have even published one book, written one album etc, should still be mentioned. Keep. Spawn Man 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:MUSIC, self-publishing does not count. >Radiant< 15:32, 9 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 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Parks

About a musician, written by Daveparks23. Does that seem like an advert to you?

Speedy delete. Not notable. - Kittybrewster 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del Mukadderat 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot see how the subject passes
autobiography. Ohconfucius 03:16, 6 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Rodell

Not nearly notable enough. {rubbish; Tashi James} Quite possibly a vanity page or even an autobiography.{Poorly sourced; this is a misinformed statement; Tashi James} Also poorly sourced and churlishly written.Policratus 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Amongst the user's contributions the last few days was nominating a random rapper to be a featured article, ~~trying~~ possibly trying to speedy delete domestic violence, then turning around and nominating it for featured article (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Domestic violence for details), and other troublesome activity. Bad faith nomination for sure, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ainu_people_2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This rubbish was tagged for speedy delete as soon as it was written. Why do you think this is a bad faith nomination? I suggest you retract that an apologize. I'm trying to write this project up. Policratus 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple secondary sources is good enough to meet notability guidelines. Against speedy keep, though, this is obviously not a bad faith nom. -Amarkov ^babble 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, subject has been the subject of multiple nontrivial sources of coverage. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read
the speedy keep criteria? "Has been the subject of multiple nontrivial sources of coverage" is not an allowed rationale for speedy keep. -Amarkov ^babble 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nominations intended to disrupt WP. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per all keepers above. --Oakshade 08:06, 5 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 00:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Thrash

Contested speedy deletion candidate; listing here for discussion. No vote.
Chick Bowen 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete - The article seems to be a plug for the website. Whether or not it is, the website's Alexa rating of 6,274,411 (you read that right, 6 million) certainly speaks for itself. -bobby 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present, this is definitely a delete candidate. I've been talking to the author about the need for independent sources, and was going to give him a couple of days to provide them before bringing it to AfD. If it has sources by the end of the AfD period, I'll reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. --kingboyk 13:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The phrase "UK thrash" is used to describe a subgenre of heavy metal in the UK – one of our album articles, WP:WEB. Ideally, the page should be redirected to thrash metal after the content is deleted, but I'm concerned someone might remove the redirect and recreate the website content. KrakatoaKatie 04:18, 6 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 10:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Die Klangschau

A radio show with doubtful notability claims. This article is also being proposed for deletion in the German Wikipedia. Peter O. (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and unverifiable. Tarret 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del Mukadderat 19:46, 3 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 (kept by default) - Yomangani ^talk 11:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from evolution

Not encyclopedic quality, and has been for 5 months without substantial edit. Hackwrench 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold - WP:EDINN --Ineffable3000 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep What the? This article has been around since Januray 2002 and it is linked to from various places about Darwinism. It needs cleanup? Then let's clean it up but there's no way this has to get zapped. Pascal.Tesson 22:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been linked to from various places about Darwinism because someone put a link to it in the "See also" of just about every article it's even tangentally related to. There's been five months since the cleanup tag had been applied and nobody thought the article was significant enough to clean up. Hackwrench 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the backlog
Han Chinese clothing. That does not mean the article should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that the tag on this page wasn't just cleanup, but cleanup-rewrite, which says: "This article or section needs a complete rewrite for the reasons listed on the talk page.", which is a more severe state than just cleanup. Hackwrench 03:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep.~~ I see no reason for deletion. Even bad quality has never been a reason to delete an article, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. IronC hris | (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. You need to give a reason why it should be kept. Bad quality is a reason. That section you linked to gives reasons why an article should be deleted and then gives alternative possibilities that, if siuccessful will keep the article from being deleted. Five months is plenty of time to see if cleanup would have saved this article. Hackwrench 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to Neutral. While I don't think the reasons behind this AfD are valid, or that rallying others who are known critics of this article is a fair practise, I understand
evidence for evolution and other articles, if this one is deleted. IronC hris | (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
My intention wasn't to rally them. I didn't tell tem to vote against it or in any way push them to it. I saw that there were several statements of support for the article and felt that known critics needed to comment here in case I had misunderstood their criticisms or that their belief was that this article would be salvageable if their criticism were addressed. Hackwrench 05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, so the article needs cleanup. It's a shame we don't have a tag for that and have to completely delete entries as soon as they drop below a certain standard. Sockatume 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In less sarcastic terms, this article needs to be flagged for attention, not wiped from the face of the Wikipedia. VfD should be the last port of call for an article that's got problems, not the first. Sockatume 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in other responses, it had been flagged for attention for five months. It had not gotten attention in thse five months, which is sufficient time to illustrate it's nonimportance. It has been in other ports of calls. Hackwrench 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how far did it get? If it's been sitting there with just a Cleanup or Attention tag on it for five months, it could be argued that editors simply didn't know about it (of course it would also mean that the article is seldom-visited and perhaps shouldn't be around in the first place). It needs a definite plan of action set out, and nobody's sitting down and doing so. Is there a "Wikiproject evolution" or somesuch it could go under where it would get more attention? We could try putting up requests for attention in Talk pages of the articles which link to it. I'm not convinced that deletion is the right course of action in such a situation. Of course, if the alternative's complete inaction, well, I could be persuated. Sockatume 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That it has been tagged for five months does not mean much. By the way, have you tried to clean it up? Before going to AfD on grounds of "impossible cleanup", you probably should have asked for help in cleaning it up by posting a note on the talk page of Darwinism, evolution and the other articles that link back to this one. Pascal.Tesson 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that other pages talk pages are the place for discussing cleaning up this one. There was much talk that recongnized the need for cleaning up this article on the talk page and little progress was made on a course of action to do something about it. Since it failed, what makes you think that I or anyone else would have success? Hackwrench 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The subject's notability is shown by numerous reliable and verifiable sources. 4800 Google hits. If there is a problem, Anyone can edit Wikipedia, as boldly as is needed. Edison 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous" has many interpretations. The number of hits for evolution is 298,000,000. 4800 is a drop in the bucket in comparison. Also, "argument from evolution" is vague enough for numerous arguments to all claim to be the argument from evolution, and that's one of the problems the article encountered. See Talk:Argument from evolution#What_Happened.3F and #Some examples of use of this term.Hackwrench 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 208 entries Google is omitting results.[56] Some of the results displayed on that page are spam. Hackwrench 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since when has poor quality ever been a rationale for deletion. Seriously. Point me to one place in policy where it says this. Also, it no doubt would have been better form to not contact only critics of the article ([57] and [58]) to !vote on deletion.
JChap2007 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I only contacted them after there was much weighing in to keep the article. Why do those who want to keep it feel such urgency to keep this that they feel it should be spedily kept and thus shorten the time to really talk about this?Hackwrench 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality has been a rational for deletion ever since "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" and "Patent nonsense (total gibberish)" were part of the Wikipedia: Deletion policy, This article doesn't cover one topic, but is a mishmash of things that say evolution and may mention either intelligent design or God. Hackwrench 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the people who are proposing the hypothesis that it can be cleaned up have made an edit to the page towards that goal, at least since the article has been proposed for deletion. When I feel an article might be salvageable, I at least do that much. Hackwrench 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have thought an "argument from evolution" would take as one of its premises that evolution was true and then derive conclusions from that. But, instead, this article consists of arguments for evolution. As such, it would appear to duplicate various other Wikipedia articles. (
Evidence of evolution and sections of Intelligent design come to mind.) --Metropolitan90 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Disingenuous, OR title/"subject": this is not an "argument from evolution" (the format of which implies some specific, well-established logical argument, not a disorganized assortment of various endorsements of evolution), it's a series of criticisms of ID and defenses of evolution (which might make fine pages in their own right, but this isn't it). Poor quality is not a reason to delete an article on a valid topic, but this article lacks a valid topic: "argument from evolution" is an unverified, non-noteworthy term in its own right, even if related issues would be noteworthy if reformated. Even if this article isn't deleted, all of its contents very clearly need to be moved elsewhere. -Silence 04:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
T | C) 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep Most of the current draft of the article has little to do with what the argument from evolution is, which is a variant of the naturalistic fallacy. However, the article needs clean up, not deletion. ~~JoshuaZ 05:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)~~ Chaning to weak Delete per Hackwrench's comments below the term appears to be possibly too much of a neologism for it to be reasonably covered in an article. JoshuaZ 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we first accept that you truly believe that the article needs cleanup and not deletion, why over the past 5 months haven't you made attempts towards that? Otherwise, it just seems to be an excuse to satisfy a fear that something bad will happen if the article gets deleted. Hackwrench 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, what basis are you using to determine that your assessment of the primary meaning of the phrase "argument from evolution" is correct. Hackwrench 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Hackwrench's points- first) I haven't gotten around to cleaning it up, but will do so now that it is on AfD. As to the second, do a google search for the phrase, one gets as some of the top hits [59][60]. JoshuaZ 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that those seem to be the only top hits that are not clones of the Wikipedia article or spam. It seems that the only reason it is anywhere near the top is because the wikipedia article and clones link to it and several widely linked wikipedia articles link to this article in their "see also". Also, as I noted above, the phrase "argument from evolution" isn't widely used. While Google reports about 4800 pages, you only go to 208 before Google sais that the rest are hidden due to being too similar to the ones already displayed.Hackwrench 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this interesting article, but also clean it! It does not meet high quality standards right now.--Yannismarou 10:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Silence - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not about 'evolution' at all, which simply means change - from the Latin verb 'evolare' meaning to change. Even the stupidest of fundamentalists admits that things have changed: society for example and even that change is necessary to 'bring God's plans to fruition.' As far as the natural wortld goes; the question is: by what process has that chagned occurred? One theory is the theory of natural selection as put forward by Darwin and Wallace. This is people usually mean by the theory of evolution. It is not the theory of evolution, but a theory of evolution. There is no reasonable argument against the evidence for change as evidenced by the fossil record. The question is how that change occurred. An enlightened theist might neatly solve the debate by saying that of course God created a wonderful world in which animals could evolve by natural selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.122.132 (talk • contribs)

~~Speedy~~ Weak Keep per everyone else that said the same. Strongly agree with Sockatume's sentiment that an article in need of cleaning up needs cleaning up rather than deletion, even if it takes awhile before someone gets around to it. Also agree with IronChris that Hackwrench's arguments around this article are unconvincing. But, Silence makes a much stronger point... Would support renaming if a better title were suggested, but definitely merge content elsewhere if not kept. --Arvedui 02:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. well referenced, verifiable text on notable subject. Cleanup. `'mikkanarxi 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is well referenced compared to the majority of articles that get sent to AfD but I would, ideally, like some more work done to clear up the OR concerns. However AfD is not a substitute for clean up and there is no convincing reasons to delete. Agne 23:51, 8 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 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Flanagan

Footballer who has never played in a professional league. Punkmorten 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - never even signed a professional contract, by the looks of things. Qwghlm 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this guy never play in a professional match then the article should be deleted from Wikipedia until Callum plays. Rakuten06 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HornetMike 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - used to be signed with
Manchester United F.C. Academy. --Dangherous 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as fails criteria for professional sportsmen, or redirect to
Catchpole 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I have a friend who used to play with
Empoli F.C. youth squad. This does not make him notable to stay in Wikipedia. Same for this guy. --Angelo 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per Punkmorten - fchd 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that he was sentenced to twelve months in a young offenders'while playing for Manchester United's reserve team makes more notable than others that have left and play in the lower leagues, this pushes it into being notable enough. Englishrose 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Did sign for MU, but the article is unsourced & very stubby. Therefore, I'd like to see it kept so maybe someone can build on it... Spawn Man 04:11, 8 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 as a fictional non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 07:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Summers

Ms. Summers has a very fetching website but nothing much else I can confirm of her rising stardom. No Allmusic entry, no Amazon listing, an IMDb listing which might or might not be her, and from the info in the article only one album slated to be released. What I can
WP:MUSIC. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

del Mukadderat 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is a fictional music star from the Web game
Wyld Stallyns. Caknuck 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, that explains it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unknown musician, article is unashamedly
porcine in content and unsalvageable, and tagged as such. Ohconfucius 03:23, 6 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 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rivera

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

Contested
talk) 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

del Mukadderat 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep To quote
WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated". Dunno what the precedent for this type of bio article is, though. EVula 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete (G10, see below) Per EVula, subject possibly meets notability requirement by being the subject of a notable court case. The article, however, fails to cite reputable sources or maintain neutral POV. This site [62] has a completely different telling of the story, but none of the disputed facts are presented neutrally. More importantly, the article accuses a law officer of perjury, coercing witnesses and fabricating evidence, which may be considered libelous if not cited and/or proven in court. I say speedy this b/c of the attack/libel issue. Caknuck 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Disputed murder convictions is a well accepted topic. Robert Rivera was very newsworthy when his case was active. The Delaware County Daily Times (circulation 160,000+) featured him on the front page many times and lists over 70 articles about him. The site is backed up by trial transcripts and police reports recorded by government officials. The items involving the law officer mentioned are backed up by the transcripts and reports. No conviction can be disputed unless there is some contention that the prosecution's case is false. Prosecution witnesses cannot sue for libel because someone contests their testimony. There is no libel issue here.

Users are free to contest specifics and rewrite sections they think are unsupported. Something could be wrong, but no one has found any specifics. This article violates the POV of some users who want to censor by deleting any mention that government prosecutors are capable of error. Wikipedia does contain many articles on individuals who were legitimately convicted. I am not aware that they are contested on POV grounds because they fail to cite that prosecutors sometimes make mistakes. Wikipedia should contain accurate facts, not just puff pieces of a world viewed through rose-colored glasses. --Danras 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danras, I don't believe that Wikipedia is any more biased than the rest of society when it comes to highly controversial cases. It's not that we want to censor opposing viewpoints, it's just that those viewpoints need to be independently documented. The only reference you currently offer is the robertrivera1.com website, which for the most part only presents one POV. If you can add in other references, such as press coverage and opposition writings, this article has a better chance of surviving. Check out Mumia Abu-Jamal's article for an example of the kind of article you want to write. Even though the Abu-Jamal article still has neutrality problems, it is much more well-documented than the current Rivera article. --RoninBK_ETC 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the "items involving the law officer mentioned are backed up by the transcripts and reports", then cite them. Official court documents are legitimate sources. But if the court permitted certain evidence and testimony that is in dispute, then the reason and source of the dispute needs to be referenced. Also, language like "fabricated circumstantial evidence", "snitch story" and "fabricated confession" without substantiation shows "opinion and bias" and thusly violates
WP:LIBEL. If you can cite legitimate sources that show the prosecution acted in bad faith, then do so and I'll withdraw my objection. But as it stands, this article cannot survive as is when [63] and [64] (both equally spurious sources) tell completely different versions of the events, but the WP article only chonicles one side. Caknuck 08:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per the WP:BIO "newsworthy events" clause. --Oakshade 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a common or garden murder case, and therefore notable. Yes, it's POV, but POV can be changed. That is no reason to delete the article. -- Necrothesp 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for clean up. Agne 23:56, 8 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 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Different Spaces

The article is about an "upcoming show", but provides no references indicating that the show is even real, let alone notable. Attempts at prod were rejected, and even adding the {{unreferenced}} tag just resulted in the tag's removal by an anon user. -- Elonka 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and take List of Different Spaces episodes with it (I've added it to this AfD). No evidence that this currently exists; official homepage is mostly blank except for what looks like a base content management install for something similar to Myspace. Shell ^babelfish 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator) and I concur that the episodes article should go with it. --Elonka 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that this is the fourth time that this page has been re-created. [65] Sorry for not noticing and just flagging it with {{
db-repost}}. Recommend speedy-deletion. --Elonka 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and protect from re-creation. This article has been deleted 3 times in the last 12 days. TJ Spyke 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read
WP:CSD#G4. This is actually not a candidate for G4 for two different reasons: 1.) it's not a substantially identical copy and 2.) it hasn't been through an AFD process. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 3 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
at 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Googolplexian

Delete. Not a real term. Just a term Wikipedians keep wanting to promote with Wikipedia. Georgia guy 21:45, 2 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 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Nick or Treat

Random non-notable advertising campaign, the only reason this article exists is to amuse the backwards catchphrase induced "humour" from the YTMND crowd. Note that I have removed the YTMND link, because it's an unencyclopedic crock of crap. This is the product of a failed education system. -
n 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable advertising campaign with a high likelihood for immature vandalism. --Daniel Olsen 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete haven't we deleted this already?
Danny Lilithborne 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The deletion log says "No.". Uncle G 11:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del Mukadderat 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and
The Network Formerly Known as Pinwheel or Trick-or-treating if possible; otherwise rm. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 06:29, 5 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 10:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mantown

Delete: No idea what this is supposed to be.
WP:OR I guess. Is currently sprotected due to ridiculous vandalism in the last 24-48 hours (which is what led me to it in the first place). I've reverted to about a month ago when it was last stable. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply
]

Comment: I mentioned this on the article's talk page, but the reason for the vandalism is because the hosts of The Toucher and Rich Show (a local afternoon radio show in Boston) were actively encouraging their users to vandalize it.--Caliga10 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some combination of original research, crystal ballism, and nonnotability. NawlinWiki 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I heard the show this afternoon as well. It all has to do with a rivalry between two local stations,
WAAF. Each station has its own hardcore fanbase, and they go after each other online. This article is just one result of that. CardinalFangZERO 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bold textItalic textKeep it on in it's originallity, don't delete it because of the radio stations bout! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 24.62.47.76 (talk • contribs
) .

Comment: If meatpuppets want to vote here, go ahead and vote regularly (although you'll probably be ignored). If there is more vandalism, this page will be sprotected too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey its fun to lie, the host of Toucher and Rich never told users to edit the page. They did mention onair that users were doing it of their own free will. Also, the original article mentioned it was for homosexual men; not heterosexual so why not just revert the page back to the Jan. 06 format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.205.249 (talk • contribs)

The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources whatsoever. This is completely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del Mukadderat 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lacking some sort of citation, the article should be deleted. To the unsigned individual claiming the original specified "homosexual", take another look. The article specified "heterosexual" until an October 19th revision. However, the point is moot without outside verification of the article. --63.88.58.254 09:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this entry I can assure you that it is real not a joke. I wrote it because I am friends with Jason Klare, the gentleman in the article who orginally came up with the idea. He, nor I, am in no way affiaiated with any radio station in the Boston area, nor have we heard about their supposed proposed Mantown. I am sure, however, that they found his idea on Wikipedia and have adopted it as their own. There are no citations for the article simply because Mr. Klare is currently working out his vision for Mantown and the article makes no claims that have been published in a citable work. Vote how you wish on the topic of deletion but it would be a very sad commentary on the subject if a few bad apples in morning radio ratings war caused the deletion of this article. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Slemaster (talk • contribs
) .
I'll take that as a delete vote then? ;) Actually, they didn't cause the deletion other than to bring it to our attention that this
WP:NOR violation was in the system at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, then, based on Slemaster's clarification above.--Caliga10 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, original research, vanity, unverifiable, and/or spam. --
Anaraug 03:53, 7 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 10:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Shawn Morrissey

I am puzzled about this one; a long article with references, etc, but I failed to find a single Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc, hit (except Wikipedia and related sites) about either himself or his books. He is indeed mentioned on the website of the
Korean Mountaineering League (KML), but the rest of the article does not describe him as particularly notable (or even particularly non-notable sometimes, as in the last paragraph of the lead). Finally, his mountaineering experience does not look any special (and I have done one of these walks). No opinion. Schutz 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete This is indeed a tough case. Scattered mentions provided by search engines, most from Wikipedia and mirrors, do not assert much notability. Not even the
WP:RS so maybe it should be deleted unless a good source does confirm his notability.--Hús ö nd 05:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to
Korean Mountaineering League. Since almost noone has given his opinion, I felt obligated to reread the article and go beyond my "no opinion" above. The fact that the whole article insists on minor and non-notable achievements convinced me to lean towards deletion. Schutz 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It appears that both were authored by the same IP address, and it may be a
KML itself scores 65 unique GHits, the majority of which are wiki or mirror sites. Ohconfucius 03:38, 6 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 - Yomangani ^talk 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence profiling tool

This article is well-written. However, it appears to refer to a
Ensembl, as examples of the term, but as far as I can tell neither of these ever use the term. Grouse 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I have indeed never heard the term in bioinformatics; the article seems to be a collection of different tools and topics grouped under a neologism (and the section on microarrays has nothing to do with the rest !) and as such, I'd be inclined to delete the page. However, it'd be a pity to loose the content, since most of it could be used on a more generic page along the line of "Bioinformatic tools". Could we integrate it somewhere else (I haven't really looked where yet) ? Schutz 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. The Bioinformatics article has a Software tools section. If this article were renamed and reworked slightly it could be a "main article" for the section, called, say Bioinformatics software tools. I don't think referring to most of these things as "profiling tools" though fits with common usage. This would need to be changed Grouse 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep honestly, this is silly. "Sequence profiling" is obviously not a neologism, I don't know how adding "tool" would become one - presumably "sequence profiling software" wouldn't sound at all out of the ordinary. No objection to a move to "bioinformatics software" or somesuch though, as that would be a more appropriate title, would be consistent with existing lists of bioinformatics-related software, and would allow more room for expansion. Opabinia regalis 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think "sequence profiling" is a neologism as well. A quick Google reveals a similar situation--many of the top hits are to either (a) copies of this article or (b) other pages by the author of this article. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the random anons showing up to keep this is a bit strange. Try searching for "sequence profile" and you'll have better luck (though, to be fair, 3D-1D profiles aren't covered in the article, and I agree that BLAST and the like don't really fall into the category - the more common usage refers to alignment techniques). Support a move/expansion/cleanup to
Bioinformatics software or similar. Opabinia regalis 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Indeed, "sequence profile" is used widely, but it means something else. In one definition [66], sequence profiles are "matrices of real values, representing the probability of amino acids at each position in a corresponding multiple sequence alignment." This has very little to do with what is discussed in this article. Grouse 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved the microarray stuff to its own article, since I was the one who originally added it and I can't for the life of me remember why. (Sequence profiles are not necessarily matrices, by the way; they can be coarser than PSSMs. This content is more like "sequence representation" though.) Opabinia regalis 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I was really puzzled by this microarray stuff in there. Schutz 07:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page! I saw an article in Science (one of the premier journals) news pertinent to sequence profiling tools. Someone please provide the link to the science article! Hate to say this,but, ignorance is not bliss. —
few or no other edits
outside this topic.

Comment. Anonymous user does not provide any verifiable support for this statement. Anonymous user's first edit to Wikipedia. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT. The concept of sequence profiling is well known and sites like
NCBI's BLAST and Ensembl offer very exhaustive services. It is also very evident in sites like Entrez and Bioinformatic Harvester which compile, process and present metadata in Bioinformatics
. So while such well known services have existed and the concept known implictly, there has been very little documentation to elaborate on this. I tried to help compile a formal write up that would help readers grasp the concept as well understand the future directions of the field. In fact the field is gradually evolving to new sites/services that accomodate new kinds of data profiling for research scientists. So, while the term and article may look original, the content is well established in literature and known to scientists.

Merging the article with any major topics is a good idea but given the length and content it will be too long to be included under ny one particular area. I have a list of possible such topics. Alternatively, splitting the content will also tend dilute the core concept.

So I would sincerely request the article to be kept since there is ample scope for input to make it a useful piece

Nattu 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the original summary, I reported the author's contention that
Ensembl are "sequence profiling tools." However, neither of these ever use the term "sequence profiling tool" as far as I can tell. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. In further discussion on the
original research. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Possible merge or rename, but do not delete. Although the title may be an original turn of phrase, the content of this article is not original research. It describes the set of bioinformatics tools used to present sequence data and sequence relationships in informative ways - I'm not aware of a specific term that's consistently always used for the topic, so I feel the title is simply a descriptive phrase (in place of Bioinformatics tools for presentation and analysis of sequence data), rather than a neologism. Perhaps simply sequence analysis, a stub article, would be a better name for the majority of this content. I am sympathetic to the idea that most of the article deals specifically with representation and analysis ("profiling") of sequence data, a worthy subject of its own article. However, the paragraph on microarray analysis is not related to this sequence profiling theme, and could be merged elsewhere. I will think about this some more, but I strongly feel that because this article deals with a specific, notable topic supported by many high-quality outside references, it should not be deleted as original research. Dryman 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sequence analysis. This summarises more or less the content of the article, without having to create a new word. Schutz 07:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems decent enough to keep. By far not the worst or most unnotable page either. Besides, everything that is now solid scientific belief was once original research right? I don't know enough on the subject to suggest a merge though... Spawn Man 04:06, 8 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 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Nieuwland College

Dutch school. (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing. Count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability.--Hús ö nd 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a prestige secondary school. It already has an article in the Dutch-language Wikipedia at nl:Pieter Nieuwland College. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was my mistake; it looked like nonsense when I first flagged it, but on closer observation it is just awkward English. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt and time to improve it. --Mdresser 14:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward English? It's in Dutch, not English. Arbusto 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was to the original version of the Pieter Nieuwland College article on English Wikipedia. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two links on the page aren't in english. Perhaps if the sources were in english and pertained to a subject in english then it would be possible to consider it for english wikipedia. As for now, it has an article at nl:Pieter Nieuwland College, and thus should be a concern for the editors in the Netherlands. Arbusto 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign-language sources are acceptable under some circumstances.
WP:SOURCE
offers the following comments about the language of sources:

English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents in terms of quality and relevance. Published translations are generally preferred to editors translating material on their own; when editors do use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, perhaps in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TT and others for now presuming that the dutch can be translated into something indicating an actually notable article. If after converstion etc. occurs there are still notability issues, then delete. JoshuaZ 06:44, 6 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 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padikasanathar

Hindu temple. (Closing admin: Procedural listing; count me as neutral). Banyan Tree 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article provides very little context, and gives no real reason as to its notability.TredWel 00:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, no assertion of notability.--Hús ö nd 04:47, 3 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 Merge to
United States occupation of Fallujah. - Yomangani ^talk 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Lions of Fallujah (Asad Al-Fallujah)

Iraqi insurgent song (Closing admin: Procedural listing; count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no notablity of this song independent of the battle - Redirect would be another good solution. --Trödel 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC

http://www.google.com/search?q=asad+al+fallujah+nasheed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The logical thing to do seems to be a smerge with
United States occupation of Fallujah. A bare mention in a Songs subjection beside Books and Films would be suffice. The song and its video exist, but beyond that there's nothing to say (unless you read Arabic ?). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - As per above, merge to the United States occupation of Fallujah article. On its own it is not notable. Spawn Man 04:01, 8 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 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian bush bands

Contents as expected, though every item is an external link. (Closing admin: procedural listing; count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Spamlist.--Hús ö nd 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Prolog 09:15, 3 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 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talbsoun

This appears to be a complete fabrication. See article's Talk page for indications of a fabrication. Epolk 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That a subject of scientific study (as a species of mammal no doubt would be) generates zero Google hits is conclusive proof of a hoax.
JChap2007 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The graphic is not accurate, and the article is a fake. WVhybrid 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious.
Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Hoax.--Hús ö nd 04:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxalicus totalicus. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. AgentPeppermint 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. But bonus points for that last sentence: "Here's an image of a Talbsoun who thinks he's going somewhere." Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 7 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 Franklin Coverup

Democratic Freedom Caucus

Corrupted Blood

WikiFur

Wild beasts

Balkan 176°

Trim Road (Ottawa)

Tummy Trouble

Dead tissue

Philosophy of probability

Vote summary

PARANOiA

Namechecking

David A. Grimaldi

Ultra-Renaissance art movement and related articles

Argument from evolution

Sarah Summers

Googolplexian

Lions of Fallujah (Asad Al-Fallujah)