Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 30 October 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete - not notable per the guidelines at

WP:BIO, for example has not been the primary subject of a published work nor do they get lots of distinguishable hits on Google (to pick just two of the tests on WP:BIO, the others are not met either). Thanks/wangi 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kit Jarrell

Non notable blogger, delete --

Peta 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to Wide Awakes Radio per other non-notable radio show hosts, if that article survives its afd nomination, otherwise delete. Thryduulf 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blogger has been nominated for several awards such as being the Weblog Awards finalist in 2005, being the #10 milblog site, and has interviewed many important figures on her show including Diana Irey, Ilario Pantano, and figures prominently in the Innocent 8 movement as well as other soldiers who are charged with crimes that are disputed. The Truth Laid Bear rankings for bloggers has her ranked at #96 of over 100000. She has hits in Lexis Nexis as well. -- Wistless 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blogger is notable by virtue of the points listed above. Her work has been quoted in World Net Daily, Patrolling magazine, the BBC, MSNBC, the Houston Chronicle, and many others. There is no reason to delete the article other than perhaps a dislike of her views. — Preceding
    single purpose account: 70.177.72.43 (talk • contribs
    ) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
That artice was deleted so a redirect will not work. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wide Awakes Radio --70.48.174.220 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a non-notable biography,

WP:BIO refers. A difficult decision with the authoring of two chapters in The Future of the NHS and being a talking head leagle beagle in the UK media. On balance, these are not enough to assert notability and the career as a barrister is not illuminated enough by the article to suggest a notable legal career. (aeropagitica) 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tim Kevan

Questionable notability and written entirely by the subject (see page history). Cordless Larry 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and note that even blatant vanity published works are often available on Amazon- availability there should NEVER be used to establish notability for a work or an author. Badgerpatrol 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and
    WP:BIO. Being a rent-a-quote doesn't make someone notable. Blisco 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The books don't seem to assert anything. Law books (and articles) in the UK are often written by not so succesful lawyers and are in essence a cheap means of advertising. Same goes with getting on the BBC. If there were third party reviews of his work I'd be more impressed. The stuff about the Conservative Collegiate Forum could be a claim to notability if there were some ("substantial") press coverage cited, but at the moment there isn't. JASpencer 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the person under discussion and was new to wikipedia until this year. I have apologised for starting the page as vanity publishing and I repeat that apology again.The page was allowed to stay on the basis that I asserted notability as a writer. I wholly accept that some of my books help advertise my practice although if you do a search of barristers' chambers you will find that very few barristers have even written one book. However, of the ten books that I have now written, I would suggest that three are important books in their own right: Email, the Internet and the Law was one of the first on this subject and Professor Richard Susskind described it in the Times newspaper as "an important new book" at the time of its publication; Sports Personal Injury is the only book on the subject and was therefore once again breaking new ground and has attracted interest internationally; finally, I contributed two chapters to The Future of the NHS which also includes chapters from all three political parties and most of the major think tanks. As for my political involvement, I did not add the story about the Conservative Collegiate Forum but it is true and was covered in both The Times and The Daily Telegraph in 1993, among other newspapers. As for my media appearances, I make no great claims save that I am the regular legal voice for the Jeremy Vine Show which is the largest daytime news and current affairs show in the country (with around 5 million listeners). Once again, I am genuinely sorry for any offence caused by vanity publishing. I shall leave well alone now other than to contribute to this discussion and will be very happy if you cut down my entry substantially. However, I will continue to contribute to wikipedia in the future and thank you all for a great site. —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Timkevan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
Comment OK, so now we have a number of claims for notability of a junior barrister:
- That two of the books he wrote solo are important in their own right, presumably they would meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). For the moment the fact that none of these books have an uncontested Wikipedia article should be seen as a sign that this is not proven.
- That Kevan wrote for The Future of the NHS, which does have its own article (let's pass by the main author of this book. However as the introduction for that article says it "brings together forty-four leading experts in the fields of health care, politics and policy making". So Kevan is one of forty-four. Not a claim to notability.
- The Conservative Collegiate Forum information may be a claim for notability - but it's still not cited.
- The Jeremy Vine show is notable, but being a contributor would only be notable if he was essentially a co-host.
JASpencer 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have restored the two books that Kevan cites as his most significant. On balance I am happy with him having an entry. The combination of his writings and media appearances make him worthy of an entry. <POV>If Big Brother contestants and rappers who have released a couple of CDs get in here someone who has already done what Kevan has done (and no doubt he will do a lot more) should not be excluded. </POV>
    TerriersFan 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment So is Wikipedia a prize for achievement? JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Article A should be kept because we have articles on utterly unrelated topics B, C and D" is generally not considered a good "keep" argument by the closing admin. Just saying. --
Aaron 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I see no reason to believe that Tim Kevan started this article in bad faith. He was unaware of the rules and has since apologised for inserting his own article. He also seems to have made quite a few good edits to non-related articles. While we may disagree with him on his notability - could we please stop the name calling? Most vanity articles start out as good faith efforts by people who don't fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia. JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it name-calling to refer to someone who incorporates a biography of themselves and their workmates into an encyclopaedia for the purposes of self-advertisement as a "popinjay"? It's a simple assertion of fact. I struggle to understand how the motivation of someone (ANYone) who composes their own biography here can possibly be described as good faith, unless they are a very foolish and myopic person. It strikes me that Tim Kevan is not particularly foolish or myopic- although he obviously knows an opportunity for free self-promotion when he sees one (see his comment above, for example). The subject edited his article repeatedly over a period of 2 months. He has indeed made some good quality edits to unrelated articles- but many (if not most) of his contribs appear to pertain to himself directly, his father, or his friends and workmates. Very poor show indeed. Badgerpatrol 01:50, 1 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,
iablo 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: It's not a full-blown policy, but it's strongly discouraged as a guideline, and
    Aaron 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Can you demonstrate that they actually are significant? Badgerpatrol 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is Garryw16's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure youd didn't mean it but you shouldn't vote twice. I've added in the stuff about the CCF to give people some idea of it's notability or otherwise. (There's also an article about this here although badly written). Personally I think this person is less notable than Emily Barr, who doesn't have her own article. If the ins and outs of the Maastricht debate and Major's dog days become better covered on Wikipedia then I could change my mind. On the e-mail law book, if this is the extent of its notability I think we should forget it. It's said to be an important book in a short review in the Times. There's no indication that it's influential on other books or on cases. If you could prove this then it could be kept in. JASpencer 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclaimer that I was a Cambridge contemporary, although not in the same party, and did some work to wikify the article. I admit it is close to the line, but senior officers of student political organisations can become notable if they are mentioned in the press. Don't know enough about the legal field to say but authors of legal textbooks does support claim of notability. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tim Kevan was notable as a proxy in a fight that is otherwise unmentioned in wikipedia. Conor Burns - the other candidate, who's achieved a lot more subsequently - does not have an article in Wikipedia. As coverage improves of Maastricht and the Tory hari-kiri that was the John Major premiership then the Conor Burns affair may be included together with some of the supporting cast. Other than his selection to the post there is no other evidence of his effect on the now defunct organisation or the wider Conservative Party. As to legal textbooks, well no one apart including Tim Kevan has started any articles for them or argued that they would meet notability standards. JASpencer 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If someone wants to merge and redirect later, great. - Bobet 17:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorption isotherm

The information given is wrong. If someone speaks German you could translate my German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorptionsisotherme as a replacement.

Rosentod (Ger) 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If the information is wrong, then just change so it is right. It seems like you speak enough English to at least be able to create a sentence or two about it. Recury 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is enough to do in the German wiki. I'm already busy there. --
Rosentod (Ger) 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy Close. Nonetheless, AfD is not cleanup. Go ask at
Wikipedia:German-English_translation_requests. ColourBurst 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. But I'm still favouring deletion of this stub.
Rosentod (Ger) 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorption isotherm is the graphical depiction of the sorption behviour of a chemical entity which depicts the link between the water content of the substance and the humidity of the air at a particular temperature.
However 'sorption isotherm' is used generally for any adsorbed or absorbed material, not just water. When writing the definition one should not restrict it to sorption of water. I think Localzuk's version would need one further iteration to make this clear. I also looked at the German version. It does use general language, to include materials other than water. But, while it is informative, it has no graphs and no fully-specified references, so I don't think that a pure translation would make the best possible article.
I don't favor the idea of redirecting this to
Sorption isotherm worthwhile in its own right. EdJohnston 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Benjamin E. Jones

This page was tagged as prod for the second time, so I move the request to AfD instead. WinHunter (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Prod nom statement: Two unfinished and unreleased films do not establish

notability. --Merope 17:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health

Non-notable organization, vanity article, most of website is non-functioning, unverifiable membership. THB 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Over 700 Ghits, an organisation that counts 3 Nobel laureates amongst its membership. A non-functioning website is not grounds for deletion of an article about a group that is not based in cyberspace. There is a hint of bad faith about this AfD nomination. --BillC 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, most of the Google hits are mirrors of the Wikipedia article, their press releases, or items planted by the parent organization. One must look beyond the number at the quality. The membership is not confirmable including any of the Nobel laureates listed. Indeed, having Nobel laureates as members does NOT make an organization notable, anyway, on its own. This organization may be notable at some point in the future but it certainly is not at this time. -THB 02:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never really looked at this article before. If it is to be kept I think it has to be almost rewritten from scratch. There are no sources other than self sources (e.g, CSMMH and CSICOP websites). The "contributions to scholarship" section also seems questionable inasmuch as it consists solely of a few articles written for CSICOP's magazine (one of which amounts to nothing more than a summary of the criminal conviction on a non-related charge of a paranormal researcher involved in something they didn't like); and then a mention of the fact that a member of CSMMH was on a TV documentary once. I've been on TV in a number of countries playing international sport but I don't see an article about me. I think delete unless something more can be found and attributed to reputable sources.Davkal 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note
    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)
    This org. utterly fails the criteria.
  • Delete per nom.--
    Peta 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lane Greene

dubious notability. I looked him up on Google and there's not too much. Nekohakase 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability. 129.98.212.164 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He wrote for the Economist, The New York Times and Slate. Notable journalist/writer. Mgm|(talk) 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Apeman Cometh

appears to be non-notable podcaster - CobaltBlueTony 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete as nn. --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Maybe the author of the podcast is, but that doesn't mean everything he produces is. Localzuk(talk) 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; lack of reliable sources, advert/promotional content, vanity concerns, no demonstration of notability. --MCB 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to keep debating this back and forth. If you guys are going to delete my article, then do it. I may not agree with your reasoning, but this is your sandbox, so you make the rules. I am going to point out that the person who noimated this originally has seemingly disappeared from this discussion, which leads me to the conclusion that this was a targeted effort and the discussion wouldn't even be happening without that person's action.Mike the Apeman 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tant Strul

Non-notable. And two of the links are to myspace blogs of the band members. Nekohakase 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, this is a notable band. Tant Strul was one of the leading Swedish punk bands from the early 80s (they quit in 1985, with a few nostalgia concerts in 2004 and 2005), and Kajsa Grytt has become a notable solo artist in her post-Tant Strul years. Tant Strul released four LPs and six singles on MNW, the leading Swedish alternative label of the 1970s and 1980s (the company is still around, but not really important, it seems). The discography is available on Kajsa Grytt's website. up+l+and 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do they have any links besides MySpace?? Nekohakase 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean something like an official website? No, it doesn't seem so. Except for a couple of reunion concerts at punk nostalgia festivals, they stopped playing in 1985, so they probably see no need to make one. The Tant Strul pages and discography at Kajsa Grytt's website (which is not at MySpace) is probably as official as you get. Does it matter? up+l+and 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Vagabonding.com

Someone's non-notable travel blog. Nekohakase 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how popular it is, you shouldn't be voting to delete it. Do your research before making a decision. - Mgm|(talk) 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable blog, and the wiki page was created by the owner of the website. --
    ChinaNailStorm 08:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nom. Localzuk(talk) 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn blog; Alexa rank 595,796. --MCB 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I Googled for link:www.vagabonding.com but most of the 571 references were just blogrolls. EdJohnston 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not a speedy. MER-C 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above. It's advertisement. Glendoremus 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis

Almost no assertion of notability (makes videos for local talent in Minneapolis), most Google queries turn up 0 relevent hits, almost completely unverifiable except for [8] [9]. --

Interiot 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--
    Peta 04:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tal Cloud

I originally tagged with {{

Irongargoyle 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete* If there's nothing on him from that age saved, that's pretty much
    unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep What's the problem? He was a major party nominee for Congress, that's notable enough. It's source, not vanity, and not promotional. We're not paper. A Google test is not a great measure for a 1992 candidate; obviously there would be many online references to such a candidate today. I frankly wish we had more data like this. I just spent several days compiling data for research on Australian regional assembly elections. Some of the material I could only find on Wikipedia, saved me possibly days of effort. In what way does keeping this hurt Wikipedia?
    Derex 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

System & Network Solutions

nn company--XIado 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

This page was nominated for "Prod" deletion on 11 Sep 2006 with the reason
This is fairly incomprehensible, and the talk page is basically an advertisement. Based on the amount of html previously in the article and still currently, it is likely a copied from somewhere.
The page was deleted 7 days after its nomination under PROD. The deletion was contested on 21 Sep at WP:DRV. It has been restored and is nominated here as a procedural matter. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect
CAFR is related. Whether the article is kept or deleted, the redirect should follow the same fate. Rossami (talk)
  • Stubify This is a valid topic but the article is complete crap. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you said it! It is a valid topic and to censor this would be to participate in the literal cover up of the issue. So Stubify it, put up "wikistandard"s disclaimers, whatever. The article could be better sourced. Having talked with Walter Burien and Gerald R. Klatt(USAF retired). My impression is they would like to see links to their site on here as well as government addresses for the imfamous CAFR reports for all over the country. Klatt's www.cafrman.com has these but they are from 2003.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Though the report is a real report, I'm not convinced that it is notable enough for its own article. There's no reference to "CAFRs" on major news sites, and the references listed in this article appear to be personal websites with a strong bias. The Google hits don't mean much to me either, since "CAFR" as an acronym can have multiple meanings. So I recommend deleting this article, or possibly merging it into something else relating to State Government spending. --Elonka 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I get 2133 Newsbank news hits for "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report". This is a quite ubiquitous document in public finance. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nom. It's not impossible that this could be made into a real article, but almost none of the current material would be usable for the purpose. I don't think we should wait around patiently for people with a strong POV to come up with something that would make sense to a neutral economist. Best to delete. EdJohnston 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a typical example of knee jerk anti conspiracy theory bias of wikipedians, these documents are verifiable and do exist. It is not significant at all that acording to Burien's research that numerous news outlets and public officials recieve a copy of many CAFR's reports from the local water and school public corporations to the several state and general government reports and do not do reports on these government holdings? Yall's nose for cooruption potential isnt itching at all?
      Jessie Ventura's political career is punctuated by his releasing some of Minnisota's government surplusses held outside the budgetary set of books. The Potential for cronie investment shuffeling should be obvious to even a 6th grader. I.E. guide investments to support your friends politically. If you don't know the investments exist in the first place you dont know to look for the deal making and the stategic investments BTW tally up the institutional investment in big companies like Health insurance, Motorola, IBM and MICROSOFT - 60-85% government owned, that is supposedly not Musellini's Corporatism? The artical needs a NPOV, shure, but these issues HAVE to be mentioned or you end up with a bias of ommission problem. Living in the world's remaining superpower you have to demand "show me the money"! Failure to understand these issues is tantamount to crossing the steet when you see a woman getting raped or a mugging in your path and not even dialing 911. I am only left with the two possibilities either there is intentional ignorance of this topic or a lack of ability to grasp the concepts of government surpluss assets. I dont know what else to say except you'll get the govenment you deserve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs
      ) 21:55, October 1, 2006
(Comment to anon editor) The main problem with this article is that much of it appears to be what's called
Verifiability. --Elonka 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I've stubified the article and repeatedly removed a set of crap and spam links, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics asking for input, to no avail. I have no interest in babysitting this article, and with the current lack of interest from qualified editors I'm pretty certain it will go back to spam/soapbox status in no time as soon as this AfD is over. So I'm amending my vote opinion to Delete unless someone is willing to keep this article on their watchlist and make sure those links stay out. ~ trialsanderrors 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is just the proverbial second set of books outside the budgetary process. If you cant see why that is the most significant report of any divison of government then we are doomed as a country. Some of you seem so averse to conspiracy "theory" that if something sounds like one, you trash it even when the proof is hidden in plain sight. I fail to see why the Gerald R. Klatt sites cannot be included, he isnt selling anything and provides links to all the CAFR's that are analysed even if they are abit old. (2003) Some of the newer State CAFR's are difficult to locate (on purpose). When government entities cry we need to raise taxes cause spending is over the budget THIS is the ammo to hit them with; we know how much is in the CAFR ! Sell some stock and surplusses(far above the required assets to back pensions and bonds et c.) There are tonnes of short blurb articals on wikipedia that I have run accross and none of them have to have to be on "watchlists" that I am of aware of. So Walter Burien might end up selling a videotape or two because someone found out that there really is CAFR reports out there. Since he HISTORICALLY re-discovered this accounting trick and exposed it to the world (through AM talk radio in New Jersey) How bout someone put up a biography on the guy; I would but it would last about 2 hours and that is beiing optamystic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 23:16, October 4, 2006
Because they're far away from
soapbox. If you know any useful sources, e.g. from government websites, that explain CAFR's, that would help the article significantly. Weblinks from "CAFRman" don't. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

ЯEDVERS 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Harry Potter (plot)

Also:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary
for the same reasons.

This is a simple soft redirect to a wikibook. No WP articles link to here (some talk pages do. Harry Potter book pages diligently link to respective Wikibooks so there is a minute risk of recreation. Swift 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
iablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete both as A1. Each article contains at this time a dead template link, ergo is content free. Just about to tag as such.... --Dennisthe2 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, so it's more like an A3 than an A1. Also, the other article is locked for some reason. I can only guess. --Dennisthe2 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Bocheko

Does not appear to be notable. No google hits abakharev 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. He gets a few google hits but for things which aren't notable. Minor movie, production company that puts out minor movies. T REXspeak 01:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well there are a sprinkling of google hits, but this filmmaker is not encyclopedically notable. Fails
    WP:V. No listing in IMDB, and his organization and claimed current projects are apparently at a "seeking funding" stage according to his website. He should actually make a film which is notable and reported on before being considered for Wikipedia Bwithh 01:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nn, Vanity, spam. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. MaxSem 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fisgoon

Fails

WP:CORP. ghits: [10] & [11] NMChico24 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "all people have a high capacitation for speak English/Spanish language." I hope to god that's a joke. - Richfife 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's probably just a poor translation. I'd fix it, but this article is headed for the trash heap. So there's really no point. --NMChico24 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Originator & prime contributor Urgido made no other contributions: seems like spam. ENeville 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, fails
    WP:CORP. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interesting places in Vancouver

Interesting list, but does it really belong here? And the title is oh-so-POV. Vancouver article is long enough that merging is probably not the best option, but I thought I'd bring it here to see what other possibilities may be worth considering. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only that was an actual policy Bwithh 02:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not?? Oh gods, no! I've been operating under that for years. ♠
MC♠ 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • In that case Delete as Canuckcruft. --
    Aaron 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ross rifle/temp

subpage in main space (

Ling.Nut 01:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete by another user -

talk/email 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

VStyle

Pure vanity (WP:VAIN), "VStyle has what it takes to create Greatness" Equendil Talk 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing but vanity InvictaHOG 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This article needs to go right now.UberCryxic 01:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Author removed speedy tag I had added. Michael Greiner 04:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete My first impression was "Total Bullshit", but it turns out he's actually out there: [13] & [14]. However... It's pretty clear pretty fast that he's currently hype in search of substance. No album releases, very little objective attention. Not yet. - Richfife 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm gonna stick with the same first impression of total bullshit. Resolute 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-bio tag was improperly removed by article author and presumptive subject. I'm replacing the tag. If he deletes it again, I will take this to ANI. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Cowan

vanity page added by User:Nomadologist who is Gregory Cowan. The subject does not meet the Notable Academics proposed guideline. The vanity page has been created by Nomadologist before, and it was deleted before. Wareh 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete by another user -

talk/email 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Young Lil LIC

non-notable, likely a vanity article. See also previous AfD debate about this article posted under a different name, with the result that the earlier version was deleted. Ropcat 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tsushima Islands/temp

subpage in main space (

Ling.Nut 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was deleted and redirected to Jim's Restaurants; the main article carries all pertinent information. (aeropagitica) 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Time Machine

Does not meet notablility per

talk 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

No, those are all themed resturants, and with the exception of medieval times, have only one, where time machine has two, and the hulk hogans one is gone. Joe I 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, then. Please forgive me. You are listing three other restaurants which should be deleted, and citing them as a reason to keep a fourth? I'm seriously asking; not being sarcastic or facetious. --
Ling.Nut 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Just listing others in the same field to show established relations on wikipedia, if those to should be deleted, that's up to you. But if not, then neither should this one.Joe I 03:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna start a long discussion, but I totally do not buy into that method of argument. The number of mom 'n pop stores and corner restaurants (and high schools and high school chess clubs and ...) in Wikipedia is daunting. It would be trivially super-easy to grab three and use them in the way that you are doing, whilst completely ignoring the who-knows-how-many that have been deleted. Invalid argument. I'm gonna go hang out where the notability discussions are for a while, and see who does what. But I've already voted here; have no desire to argue. --
Ling.Nut 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
oops accidentally mangled joe's post. fixed. --
Ling.Nut 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
oops again, I said I was done, but the full scope of that recursive argument just struck me. One would need to delete *every* single corner Chinese restaurant in Wikipedia to counter that argument -- which is of course impossible, since new corner Chinese restauraunts are being added faster than a thousand monkeys can type. Argument is recursive. Argument relies on inertia rather than principle. I cannot accept the corner Chhinese restaurant argument. Sorry. --
Ling.Nut 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not some cornor chinese resturant. Those do not have 2(3) operations, are not owned by a larger franching resturant(usually) and do not get people driving 100 miles or more to eat at. And i'm sure sure the little chinese don't dress up as GI Joe or Shaggy or have an actual running 1930's car as a salad bar. Try comparing it to maybe one of Emerill's resturants(without his cooking of course). There's an atmosphere reputation people pay to be part of. Joe I 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Joe.. hey .. please.. I was firmly rejecting your method of argument but not rejecting the restaurant by comparing it to a corner Chinese restaurant. You see, you made a far more valid type of argument just then, when you discussed why the restaurant was, in your opinion, notable. In the second argument, you appealed to facts, stating that people drive 100 miles to eat there etc. I personally -- and this is just me -- wouldn't agree that those facts prove notability. But I do agree that it is 'definitely a valid means of making an argument. Your first argument -- the "corner Chinese restaurant argument" was invalid through and through, and unacceptable as such. Your second argument stands on its own merits. If people are persuaded by it, then it will win the day.
Please let me know if I am making sense. I am not attacking the restaurant you support. I was rejecting your method of framing your argument... does that make sense? Thanks --
Ling.Nut 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to Jim's Restaurants and add a section for this particular franchise in it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the outlet's mentioned. There was also a very famous outlet in Austin, Texas, which burned down under somewhat suspicious circumstances. We can certainly expand this article with interesting and informative history about the properties.

Johntex\talk 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • There was nothing very famous about the Austin outlet that I know of other then it was a snazzy novelty that everyone liked to try out. -
      talk 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete nothing is convincing of meeting notability. --Arbusto 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jim's Restaurants. The parent company Frontier Enterprises and its "Jim's" chain, do appear to be notable. As it stands, the Jim's page does have coverage of the parent company. If I had my way, I'd probably move the Jim's Restaurants page to Frontier Enterprises with redirects from Jim's and MTM. --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jim's Restaurants. TJ Spyke 05:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The chain is already mentioned in the main article, so there is nothing worth merging. Yes, we have lots of articles that should be deleted -- that is no reason to keep more. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think there is something worth merging, in that the restaurants are interesting enough that the descriptions in the article should be complete enough that somebody could know what they are. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not assert notability. JIP | Talk 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unremarkable restaurant with 1 or 2 locations and neither an assertion of notability nor sources showing any wide public interest or awareness in the media, etc. --MCB 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jim's Restaurants. There's no reason to outright delete this information since it can be used to improve the Jim's Restaurants article. - Lex 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (forgot this part)[reply]
  • restaurant-cruft. --Anomo 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough in its own right and is sufficently covered in the main article. BlueValour 02:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

masterka 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Roberto Carrillo

Deletion nomination Fails

WP:V, and WP:VAIN. This guy might actually be a musician, but there's no proof that he's an encyclopedically notable one, though there's considerable indication of a rich fantasy life. Apparently his performance venues are usually "informal concerts" in shopping malls "particularly in places where pianos are being sold" i.e. he goes to musical instrument stores and takes over the nearest piano. Sole external reference link is a gushingly positive review article (that stops just short of total adulation and then adds the small print that the critic is supposedly the most feared by classical musicians or something so I guess a 9/10 from her is like a 15/10 from anyone else) which strangely does not cite its original source but is hosted on a spammy article database which apparently anyone can submit articles to with minimal quality checks[15]. This external source is highly unreliable. The article claims that the subject is a direct descendant of a Holy Roman Emperor without any proof (apparently this makes him "royalty" though). The subject also claims noble titles which are from fantasy organizations and countries whose honours are available to anyone- see Grandmaster of the Chivalric Order of Cravant and Great Order of Vikesland. Oh and here's the totally unconvincing website of the Royal Society of Music, which like the Royal Society of Art is part of The Vikesland Ministry of Culture - these societies are supposedly presided over by Carillo. He is also named as the Minister of the Interior on the Vikesland website[16]
.Fantasy vanity hoax nonsense.

Thanks for the kind comment! Bwithh 02:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and block user On second thought, having seen the other related AfD's, and googling a bit, it this appears to be a pretty obvious hoax. Note that the "royal society of music" website is hosted on a tripod site with the same name in the URL as the single purpose user perpetrating this hoax. Resolute 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant believe this crap isnt actually speedyable... Resolute 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Reliable Outside Source to Indicate Notability. Bo 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even a colorable assertion of notability. Why wasn't this nominated for CSD? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience, anyone whose major achievement in life is claiming to be descended from some long-extinct mediaeval royal house is a candidate for deletion. Accordingly, delete. --Gene_poole 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of anyone who proclaims themself emperor, king or Prince Gene Poole. Roberto Carrillo is one this centuries best classical pianists, and I implore you to research before posting slanderous materials. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What is your point? That Vikesland and its self-proclaimed Prince are not notable? Agreed. Proclaiming oneself does not make one notable; being proclaimed by others is what gives notability and verifiability. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which has been done, certainly in Vikesland's case. They've been published.--Freddulany 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why it's Prince Christopher I of Vikesland himself![19]. What a honour, your majesty! Bwithh 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I should write my bio as former Prime Minster of Slobovia. I'll retire to Bedlam. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: One of this century's best classical pianists? On which planet Mr Beyette? I've been a producer at the main public FM classical music radio station in Sydney -
          2MBS - for nearly 2 decades. Our audience catchment is the greater Sydney region - population 4+ million - and I can assure you that neither I nor anyone else here in the real world has ever heard of the the prodigious Mr Carillo. This Vikesland business is rapidly descending into the realms of farce. --Gene_poole 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • Delete per nomination. MikeWazowski 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this Vikesland crap has gotten out of hand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as an attack page by User:Vegaswikian. ColourBurst 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Henshaw

Unnoteable

The Fox Man of Fire 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Florida Power & Light/Sandbox

subpage in main space

Ling.Nut 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Do we need a new speedy criterion? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 07:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - last major edits were over a year ago, its abandoned.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First contact User:Nuggetboy to see if he still wants the page. If he does, move the article to User:Nuggetboy/Florida Power & Light. If not, then just delete the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ^TBC^ said. -- Kicking222 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need an admin for that. I posted the following on his talk page: "This sandbox that you created has been nominated on AFD, because sandboxes should be in user space not article space. If you want it, or any part of it, please move it into your user space and the redirect can be speedied. If not, it can just be deleted." If he moves it, we can just nominate the redirect under R2 and there is no disruption. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laruel Mall

First, the title is misspelled, though that can be fixed. The text is sourceless and unencyclopedically written, and the subject itself is a local mall that is admittedly "defunct". Opabinia regalis 02:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article itself seems to make case for its non-notability. ENeville 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would have qualified for speedy A7 (no assertion of notability). Robert A.West (Talk) 06:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it would not. Please read that criterion more carefully. Uncle G 09:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. EdJohnston 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article fails to even assert meeting
    GRBerry 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Bryson

Fails

WP:MUSIC, non notable extra in Sorority Boys. Ghits turn up her Myspace and her Wikipedia article. T REXspeak 02:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Marian Walsh/Temp

subpage in main space (

Ling.Nut 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Carrillo Symphony Orchestra

Nomination for deletion Probable hoax. No hits on google except mirrors of wikipedia[20]. No hits on google books. [21]. No Factiva hits.

I am also nominating the related article Victoriano Carrillo, the supposed founder of the supposed orchestra (note that the Tony Carrillo mentioned in article seems real but totally unrelated). Also see the related afd for Roberto Carrillo. These articles were all created by the same user[22] who also at one point claimed an ancient English dukedom for this Filipino Carrillo family[23]. Bwithh 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Yesterday, Today, & Beyond

a nice fansite about batman, but is not notable for inclusion on WP. Fails

WP:WEB (it's borderline, but I don't think a brief segment on a low-rated cable show and a newpaper citation of a pic is enough). Also fails WP:VAIN as creator of article is an administrator at the site. Alexa rating is 385,477. "batmanytb.com" gets 102 unique google hits [24] Giant onehead 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Holy fancrust, Batman! indeed. Delete JPG-GR 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation Story Archive

nn, niche, inactive website, probably does not meet

WP:WEB, alexa of 222,415 and very spammy article. Google for title phrase gets about 250 unique hits, and most are not about the said site. [25] Giant onehead 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment No, I did the google test right, I'm fairly certain. And you don't have to be such a jerk about it, let's hear from some other users about it. The google count is just a small part of why this should be deleted. Giant onehead 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update-- I put in some research time and rebuilt the article from the ground up, doing away with a lot of the advertising-y feel and generally spamminess. I think at this point the article meets the requirements of

WP:RS recognizes that popular culture and fiction topics "may not be discussed in the same academic contexts" as other material; ezines and their ilk, especially with years of (web-)publication history are at least a reasonable step above "[p]ersonal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs". I'll see if more is available as time permits. Serpent's Choice 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree.
WP:RS restricts use of "bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs" and cautions against self-published sources "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication ... includ[ing] personal websites, and books published by vanity presses". eSCENE had an established (and rotating) editor board. Likewise, both of the ezines referenced herein (Anthro and TSAT) have editorial control; these are not self-published sources, nor do they equate to content like personal websites (e.g. Geocities) or blogs. The FPÖ allegations can also probably be better documented by someone who speaks German (as an internal Austrian political issue ibn 1997-8, English-language coverage is essentially nonexistent). Not all articles can or should have citations from conventional news agencies because not all verifiable encyclopedic content is newsworthy and print-appropriate. What is expected from sourcing for an article of such a nature that is not present here at current? Serpent's Choice 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment It seems to me articles on sexual topics, and particularly sexual minorities, are on occasion held to a higher standard here at AfD than articles on less fraught topics.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. – Avi 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods

Moved from Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection by original author as a result of the debate. I am cleaning up the AFD page and have nominated the resulting redirect for deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR--Dpplx 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Don't DeleteThis article allows students of the art and the study of Korean history and pottery true examples to evaluate the different periods of development in Korean pottery from ancient times. The generosity of the of the author's family allows students to include unique photographs of a collection in reports and presentations on the subject. This article enriches this resource of information on the subject. Deletion from Wikipedia will lessen the archive value of this encyclopedia. It would be a loss for Wikipedia. Deletion would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVCOL (talk • contribs)
    • Reply A couple of things: The article is Vanity in that collection was made by a relative of yours (Father? Grandfather?), so posting it on Wikipedia serves to indirectly raise your profile. That isn't fatal to an article by any means, but... it immediately raises the spectre of objectivity issues. There are a LOT of pieces from a perstonal collection in the article. Are the pieces notable? How do we know the captions are correct. I know YOU know, but I don't know myself. Which brings us to the biggest issue of all. The article is named "Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection". Is the Colaianni Collection a notable collection? Is it better than, say, a collection I would find in a museum in Seoul or New York? My instinct is no, but if I'm wrong, we'll need to see some backup. You've posted an article with your own last name in the title. That's throwing up a lot of red flags. - Richfife 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified (and probably unverifiable) catalogue of an unpublished private collection. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep, but serious rework needed. See comment below. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little more than an image collection, and what little text there is violates
    WP:NOR. JIP | Talk 10:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the nations

Repost of speedily deleted material from

Irongargoyle 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. -

iablo 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of The Colbert Report episodes

While The Colbert Report is a popular show in the cable universe (take note) it (or just about any other regular talk show) does not warrant its own episode guide. There have been 150 episodes done in the last year, and this page is now 99K. We don't have episode guides for nearly all game shows (like

WP:NOT, including Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a free webhosting service, if you want to make your own episode guide, make your own site, not sludge this info into WP. Giant onehead 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep Similar Articles are everywhere including

100 Listed in "Lists of sitcom telivision episodes"
29 in Lists of "Dramedy telivision episodes"
59 in Lists of "science fiction episodes"
22 in Lists of comedy television series episodes
Saying Similar articles don't exist is a lie. Saying this article is not useful is also a lie. This page is similar to many of these, most notably the "list of the simpsons" episodes. From which each episode has its own page, which in my opinion is less navigateable. This leaves us judging the article on "it takes up too much space". I'm not on WIKI an exceptional amount, but I didn't see any policy on "lists with many items not allowed" and if there is one, it should be respected. The simpsons list for instance; however, is twice the size of this one. Where is the threshold for too many items? Is it at exactly 154 episodes that a show has been on the air too often to have a wikipedia article? It's also my opinion that the submitter for deletion didn't do so in good faith and seems offended by the show itself being an "indiscriminate collection of facts" not the article. (69.76.206.124 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment I never said anything about hating the show, nominating this article had to do with that it just isn't suitable for Wikipedia, not that I think the show is overrated or such. There is a big difference in doing an episode guide for a primetime network drama than a daily talk show. Giant onehead 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I wouldn't mind a list of episodes if it only had 13 episodes (or some other manageable number) in a season. The Colbert Report has so many episodes each year that this would be an immensely long list after only a couple of years. I'd say this violates
    talk) 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Billion 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because I don't think individual episodes should get an article, yet it wouldn't be a good idea to not have the information. Using examples like game-shows is not using an equivalent media subject, as it doesn't make much sense to cover something that varies only by what puzzle is on and who is solving. Oh, and what they spend. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind a collection of who has been on the Tonight Show or the like. Sheer potential size isn't much of an issue, IMHO, since we've got things like the List of Playstation games (6000+ entries). Yeah, at some point, you might want to break things up by season, but that's a convenience issue. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Comparable to lists of television stations: i.e.
    Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) at 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) for this AfD nomination[reply
    ]
Comment I don't see how any of those lists you mentioned can be comparable to this one. Futurama is/was a weekly network series and had around 80 episodes. Even a low-rated episode of Futurama had its ratings several times more higher than the average episode of this show. I've said this before, if you want to keep using this guide and put it somewhere, why not make your own webpage for it? WP is not a webhost or a soapbox. I knew there were going to be a few hardcore fans of this show trying to clutter the vote just to get their show more attention, but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. For the admins, please consider that when you make a decision to keep/delete the article. Giant onehead 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I'm not trying to be pro-Colbert, but The Colbert Report has the
Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I refuse to stop. That is the most asinine argument I have ever heard. You are comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a daily talk show to a cartoon series. An episode of a network cartoon series like Futurama is far more notable than 99% of episodes of this show. I have read WP:NOT and I am 110% certain that this article violates a fair amount of those provisions. I won't stop, <personal attack removed>. Giant onehead 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:AGF. Those are requirements for participation here. --JJay 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This is 100% unadulterated listcruft, containing finely detailed information piled up in an essentially impossible-to-navigate list. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all above. Verifiable and notable. Compared to some of our other lists, this is gold.UberCryxic 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists of show episodes are notable as millions of viewers watch each one. Arbusto 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Great God Almighty, this is TV fancruft at its worst. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems the nom don't like the Cobert Report, and that's not enough to delete an article. - Lex 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said anything about hating the show. I'm just questioning it's notability. Instead of making a blind guess as to how I might feel about the subject, why don't you actually read my reasoning first? Giant onehead 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: notable show with recurring elements and characters, much like a drama or comedy, for which we have tons of episode guides there. The argument against this article could have worked if the show was three or four weeks in and not likely to be successful, but as it is an extremely successful show and not a flash in the pan, the article must be kept. Calwatch 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May eventually need trimming down or splitting (I'd suggest only having a summary for the "significant" episodes, where memorable phrases get coined or where important guests come on, but am not familiar enough with the show to get specific) but it's not like Wikipedia has limited space. Considering how much we've got on Pokemon or Gundams this doesn't seem overly large. Bryan 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Colbertcruft. Applaud Calton's nuke from orbit idea: it's the only way to be sure ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. If you don't want episode list articles on Wikipedia then I recommend going through channels to get the related Wikiproject discontinued. Otherwise I see no reason why this can't be treated any different. 23skidoo 12:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split into seasons. DCEdwards1966 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen the show at all, and in fact I've never even seen an entire episode of The Daily Show (we don't get it over here where I live). However, it seems like a perfectly legitimate page, and of value to many readers. --DeLarge 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - No one is soapboxing here, and the show varies significantly on a day-to-day basis. If you question its notability, look at the amount of hits on Google for the Colbert Report vs. the kings of Wessex. Why shouldn't we have the first list if we have the second? Irregulargalaxies 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment . If there are a lot of raw ghits for colbert-report, there are five (one, two, three, four, five) gbooks hits. For my randomly selected (and dead for over 1300 years) king of Wessex, there were around five hundred. See the difference ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference being that this king of Wessex has had 1300 years in which to have books written about him yet only has five hundred, whereas the Colbert Report has been on the air for roughly a year and already has five? :) Personally, I don't think benchmarks like Google hits or book numbers are very good means of comparing relative "prominence" of subjects, beyond a basic "yeah, other people have heard of this too" threshold. Too many confounding variables. Bryan 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The reason of suggesting deletion has no ground. you claimed the guide violated various parts of WP:NOT and yet you failed to come up any evidence at all. 1)Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - This article is not. 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox - This articale's not. 3) Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - This article's not, plus with at least 10 editors contribution this is hardly "indiscriminate collection of information". If any of the above claims is true, then by your definition every TV episode guide on WP should be deleted. The most pointless arguement of all, which is the number of episode, is simply irrelevant. Since when WP has a guideline states how "few" episodes of a program should be eligible for a guide of its own? Sorry your arbitral magic number doesn't work here. Samic 07:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- where's Wikipedia:Not The TVGuide when you need it? JPG-GR 07:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then go ahead and try to delete every single TV episode guide on WP... To answer your question: because there is none. Stop trying to make Articles for deletion page into your personal soapbox Samic 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are trying, stop getting in our way! Recury 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This collection of information is very short compared to e.g. the very extensive entries of
    Family Guy episodes where each episode has its own extensive article. Here in the case of Colbert each episode is summarized very economically. Spebudmak 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep I find this page very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.78.25 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Maybe it could be split into seasons. But, I see no "soap-boxing." Is this page ruining lives? Is it dividing America? No. Is it a little frivolous? Sure. What the hell! Swatson1978 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've found this to be a hugely useful resource - it'd be a shame to see so much work deleted - So long as other TV shows have episode guides so should the Colbert Report.MagicBez 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The Colbert Report is not, at heart, a "talk show" like Letterman. It's fiction, with Colbert playing a fictional character. His interview subjects are more like "guest stars" in a situation comedy. The existence of this list to keep track of the show's mythology is very justified.86.53.54.14 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Highly notable show, very divergent episodes. Most importantly though, it's a watercooler show and this page provides people with information on what story was on what episode. --Jirrupin 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very good resource, and not unlike many other show episode lists. The work put into this page shouldn't be put by the wayside. Dhp1080 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You do have some good reasons for deletion but taht doesn't change the fact that this is a very useful page. Granted the optimal solution may be to have this content elsewhere on the great WWW but that is not the case. I think Wikipedia has enough resources to maintain an informative and useful page of information that would likely be forgotten otherwise. I find myself using this page frequently for reference. I would like to see this broken up into pages per season at some point in the near future though. Fsamuels 05:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is the most comprehensive Episode List for the show. Removing it would be unproductive. Please keep it.
  • Delete per nom. Although I couldn't watch this show even if I wanted to, it's not appropriate, sourcable (you'd need to find a third party who compiled the list and donated copyright), or notable, even if the show is notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. We do get Comedy central. It's still not sourcable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Warren

Copy-paste job from user space to go with

Irongargoyle 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blane Covert

Nonnotable teacher and author of unpublished book, The American Standard, also nominated here. NawlinWiki 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Know A District

Technically, it's a

Aaron 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Pare Down and Merge to main article. Too much information! - Richfife 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, relatively well known segment on a well known show. The segment has recieved a lot of media attention due to Colbert's continual "manipulation" of the words of well known politicians. For example, Wexlar's comment on prostitutes and cocaine has been mentioned on the Los Angeles Times[28], Geraldo at Large [29], Good Morning America [30], and Fox News [31]. (note the last three links are on youtube, where the news report videos are hosted)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A series of interviews with 434 of the most important prople in the US is definetly notable. (I hate to admit this, but I missed a few interviews, and I came here to find out who it was I missed..)EnsRedShirt 06:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is cruft, doesn't need it's own article or space. Yes, this is one of a long series of articles/entries that try to make this show look more popular and notable than it is. Giant onehead 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's defiantly not as crufty compared to
having over 450 articles on every single Pokemon character in existence. Also, how does having more articles make a subject "look more popular and notable than it is"? Using my previous example, there are more Pokemon related articles than there are Buddha or Einstein related articles, but does that make Pokemon any more notable than either Buddha or Einstein?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
But the scope/audience/popularity of Pokemon is much larger than this show. Yeah, maybe you can't really do 100 articles with Einstein as the main focus, but those articles on their own will always carry more weight and be more viewed than a pokemon character. Giant onehead 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you just don't like the
Colbert Report. While you have the right to that opinion, it doesn't mean you can delete all the articles about the show. - Lex 01:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas larkin

Originally tagged as a

Bryant 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete I would argue that Thomas Larkin is moving toward notability on YouTube, but his notability is marginal there. I do think that we should be more liberal in accepting these popular YouTube entries, but this case has not yet stood the test of time. He is a new user and not known outside of YouTube.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

International School of Management (ISM)

There are many schools called "International School of Management", which have no connection to this one (for example this German school called International School of Management). This one, however, is

WP:RS. Arbusto 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 04:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure their diplomas look Mahvelous! - Richfife 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The school figures prominently on our
    List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning would fail wp:Corp. An institution does not get a free ride to be on a list if it does not qualify for an article. --JJay 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
1) Note the use of the word "ideally" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps, once this is deleted it should be removed from the List of diploma mills too. 2) Feel free to nominate unaccredited institutions that fail notability. Just because there may be unnotable "unaccredited schools" (I say may because you failed to give examples) that is no reason to give every questionable instituion an ad space on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is really like arguing with a child. If YOU think the list of mills should be put up for afd then YOU do it. If YOU think this is notable YOU should give sources. Arbusto 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a child, although it is a bit childish to start shouting or bolding your comments. I think if we are going to do lists of non-notable diploma mills - and let's admit it, they are all non-notable, meaningless and obscure - we should have articles on those diploma mills so we know what we are talking about. Doing lists of non-notable subjects is a waste of wikipedia time and space. The non-notable diploma mill list needs articles on all its underlying components, per the list guidelines, or it should not exist. --JJay 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then put the list up for afd, and let's see if anyone agrees with you. Before you do see the reasons it was kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Arbusto 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't waste my time nominating articles for deletion. I'm interested in expanding the extent of coverage at wikipedia, based on existing guidelines. However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia that goes no further than the name of the school, and then deleting articles on the underlying diploma mills, does a disservice to the users of this reference work. It provides no better information than can already be found in outside databases. It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines. In my view, it is a sad waste of resources and editors' time. --JJay 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That a serious claim perhaps you better deal with it then if it "violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." I guess if you don't deal with it then the claim is WRONG and smokescreen for you to attack me in another afd nominated by me. Arbusto 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone needs proof JJay is doing this for
WP:POINT see his comments on a copy and pasted list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination), which happened to be nominated by me as well. Directly taken off a publishers webpage and the list does not contain wikipedia articles. Arbusto 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I am "dealing with it" by voting to keep this article, just like with the unrelated list you are hammering on about, just like with the vast majority of my participation here. As I said, removing information on topics of interest to wikipedia users, such as this article, does a disservice to users of this reference work. It should be avoided when at all possible. --JJay 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn diploma mill. Eusebeus 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To respond to JJay; the arbitrary inclusion of an institution on a list is not an argument for keeping an article about it, since anyone can write an article about a non-notable institution, add the institution to the list, and then argue to keep the article based on it being on the list. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and it seems to me that the article should be judged on the encyclopedic merit of the institution itself, which appears to me to be an unremarkable degree mill. --MCB 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the list guidelines. We have entire lists of these types of institutions, "unremarkable diploma mills" in your words... They are either worthwhile subjects for listing and, as per the guidelines, articles, or they are not. In that case we should not be wasting our time doing lists of diploma mills- almost all of which are obscure, non -notable, non entities. They all fail wp:corp--JJay 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Girl Magic

No sources listed, plus it sounds an awful lot like Yung Joc's "Dope Boy Magic". Sounds like a hoax to me. Tom Danson 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At the very least it's crystal ballery - Richfife 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This probably won't deserve its own article even if it actually gets made. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Haven Band

Fails

WP:BAND. De-prodded without comment. -IceCreamAntisocial 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vango Adventure Farm

This article was already deleted once, see this for that debate. Although it's no longer crystal ball-ism, it's still NN.Dismas|(talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "will evolve through 10 phases to possibly become the largest theme park in Norfolk County". That's some pretty faint praise. - Richfife 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Doesn't even come close to meeting notability requirements of
    WP:V. --Satori Son 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete --Robdurbar 11:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Federation of Colleges and Seminaries

I originally created this page thinking this was more notable than it was. However, this is an

unrecognized "approver" linked to 6 unaccredited and unnotable schools. It was started by a operator of an unaccredited school in an attempt to give his school legitimacy. I get 67 yahoo hits for "American Federation of Colleges and Seminaries", and that includes wikipedi and its mirrors. Possible accreditation mill and lacks verfiblity. Arbusto 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per Arbustoo. Durova 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kind of a pity because keeping it could sort of act as a public service, but there's no way to do that without getting into NPOV and OR issues. - Richfife 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD G7 (author requested deletion). Tagged as such. MER-C 08:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -

iablo 10:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Godavari Express

An article that lists the stops for a train along its route. Non-notable listcruft. Valrith 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded The article gives no info about the trains history, its significance, its effect to the local economy in the stations it stops. It is just a list of where it stops. The article is just not encyclopedic. It has to give more info like The Ghan or the Rajdhani Express --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete it. "Keep or merge?" is an editorial debate — continue it on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicaster Creek

Minor geographic feature. Nothing that asserts notability -

talk 04:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was baleet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bamburgers

Deprodded by an anon, with no comment. Couldn't find any references to this term or the people who are claimed to have coined it. "References" is just a list of books that don't seem to exist either. The Bethling(Talk) 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Stargate Atlantis DVD

Wikipedia is a not dvd shopping guide websites--Andd 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Information contained in article is already duplicated in the "Straight Outta Lynwood" article, so no merge is needed. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I Creep You Out

Was not released as a single and is non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Idiot for a similar debate. Delete as nom. Michael Greiner 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although if it gets released as a single it'll start to look more notable.
    Review me) 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Recreate if released as a single. Resolute 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual album songs are not inherently notable --keepsleeping slack off! 13:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep really? theyre not?? what about all those songs listed under polkarama they all have articles. This article should be expanded on. Barcode 15:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The songs in Polkarama! are all singles that were released as singles, got a lot of radio play, and did well on the charts; otherwise, they wouldn't have been selected for the polka. Of course, feel free to try to expand the article. I understand there might be a music video for it soon. --Maxamegalon2000 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the video is on the album(dvd side) and is all over youtube Barcode 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "all over youtube" you mean that there's one video of a fan singing it and one copy of the official video, then you're probably right (this is in relation to Polkarama). Similar comments can be made about this song as well.
Review me) 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virus removal

How to articles do not belong on Wikipedia. This one doesn't belong anywhere, as the advice is unlikely to help with any real virus infection. This could be a speedy deletion candidate as an advertisement for Hijack This. Mr Adequate 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Valoem talk 05:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We may want to have an article on this subject, but none of the current text will be useful. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteEven if this is and ad for the product, it is not informative. Emeraude 08:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete unhelpful, and WP:NOT a set of instructions (these are hardly instructions but I think thats their intention.) --Alex (Talk) 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Good grief. Michael Kinyon 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Arena

Article gives no indication of satisfiying

WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Due to the sources put in the article I'm retracting my nomination. Whispering(talk/c) 12:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently it's a review of this free map, no effort whatsoever made to pass
    WP:SOFT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm convinced by Hahnchen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Spam for freeware is still spam. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable modification(If you talk Deathmatch, and the subject of Rocket Arena doesn't come up, the conversation is incomplete) of a game series that is itself notable, not a game guide or advertisement. It'd be one thing if the mod was only made for one game in the series, then I'd say pack it into that article. But Rocket arena is available for all of the Quake series, and there are equivalents in other games, like HL and UT. FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article could use some cleanup to make it more encyclopedic. This mod certainly is a long-standing modification for many FPS games. With regard to the issues raised: 1) if it lacks sources, source it; 2) verfiability is hardly an issue since there is only one source (so see number 1 again) and 3) the software criteria are only guidelines (which I believe are met for this mod). I see no case for deletion here other than the highly arbitrary call to gamecruft. See also: [35] Rocket / Clan Arena is released on Sept 25th, 1997 and quickly becomes the 2nd most popular Quake mod and is still popular today. Only CTF is played more than RA. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain: this certainly is a long-standing, often played, well-known modification. I never play Quake or Unreal, but I have heard of this mod many times. There are even references to a magazine in the article (and this has been covered in many magazines). Therefore, more should be added, I agree, but that is NO reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's no dissension about anything. See also the
WP:Auto section. Besides, there are plenty of other magazine articles on Rocket Arena. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Abraham Levy

No verifiable sources, probable hoax, providing "back story" related to Raul Julia-Levy (alleged first born son of Raul Julia). The "top landowner between the 1940s to the 1980s", one of the 5 richest men in the world, co-owner of Levi Strauss - but no google hits or any published source to back up any of these claims. Article's creator deleted a "prod" attempt. Rick Block (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete possible hoax article. I found no information on this "fifth richiest person" in 1960. Valoem talk 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Valoem. Could find other Abraham Levys in Google, but not this "person". 1ne 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Evaluate per captions for the pictures on the page. If they are translated, they support the article. Sources in Latin America are currently being examined by the family. user:otooledupree (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2006 (PST)
  • Delete. I'm not buying this. First of all, what exactly do these captions say? And as mentioned, it is rather strange that one of the 5 richest men wouldn't show up on google. If someone can come up with sources, I'll re-evaluate, but the picture captions aren't enough for me, especially untranslated. Cool3 18:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No article in Spanish Wikipedia, another indicator of hoax. The Photon 01:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and WP:V. How do we know any of this to be true? EdJohnston 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Coilhose Pneumatics

Company advertisement, with no references verifying notability. Article does not pass

WP:CORP, and a previous attempt at deletion was just deleted from the page by an anon user. --Elonka 05:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Street Family Medical Clinic (Simcoe, Ontario, Canada)

NN business, fails

WP:CORP. Dismas|(talk) 05:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

FreeCNC

Fails to

assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tresta

Fails to

assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar

Propensity

Not an article -

talk/email 06:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whac Off! 106

Either very non-notable unlisted company or

completely made up. No google hits, news articles or anything else to indicate it's real and significant Peripitus (Talk) 07:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Based on the creator of the article I'd say that this is a vanity effort also - Peripitus (Talk) 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for things made up on You Tube one day. If this should be kept, the vandalism should be reverted, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -
    vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - YouTube cruft.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn youtube production group. --Dennisthe2 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response My company is real and has been official for 9 years. The YouTube thing is only a recent addition to Whac Off! as it has only existed since the start of the year and the only thing that was specifically made for YouTube was the Matty And Deveski YouTube Show, and was created for non-profit purposes only and was made for fun nothing else, which is why I haven't advertised it offically on Google etc. The person who vandalised my page was a lonely loser who used my reputation for his own reasons, as he has no talent or motivation to suceed other than being a telemarketer loser, and being highly competitive and envious of anyone who isn't 27 and still living with their parents. Anyone who wants copies of the Whac Off! series which is free can email me on [email protected], and I'll send it. With the world is disarray, comedy is our only thing which makes it livable. Thankyou Joel --trema_inc 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Astor

NN bio. No Google hits seem to refer to a dramatist. No Google hits at all for the alternative name "Gerald Astoria" Nehwyn 07:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This doesn't even make a colorable claim of notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, either a hoax or mistake, no Ghits for his basic biographic data. MaxSem 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk County municipal election, 2006

A county municipal election is not notable enough for me. If there is a guideline for this, I couldn't find it. Dismas|(talk) 08:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are a number of other articles on municipal elections in other cities (check the category), and they give coverage and information to those interested in politics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the cat, although I'd like to see what happens with this afd before proceeding with a larger scale afd. I don't believe county level elections are notable enough. Dismas|(talk) 10:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom. Are we going to have coverage of every local election in every jurisdiction across ther globe? Eusebeus 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is crystalballing as well - the election hasn't even started yet. What's more, Norfolk county only has a population of [Norfolk County, Ontario|60,847]. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no, not crystal-balling. These people are running, as the time for new candidates has been cut off. -- Zanimum 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is probably too large a topic to add to the Norfolk County article, so I would keep it as a stand-lone article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I realize Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but if you've actually spent two seconds in Wikipedia, one would realize how many articles we have on future elections. Just try and delete
    U.S. Presidential election, 2008. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Do we need to report on Wiki the results of every election? I don't think so. Let's avoid electioncruft. Vegaswikian 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Wikipedia is not paper. Obviously, smaller municipalities if they have articles, should be merged with other in their county or census division, but in the case of Norfolk, it's an entire census division, so it's too large to merge with anything else. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly keeps people civicly minded in an era of indifference. -- Zanimum 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zanimum. In time, however, I hope that many of these articles can be merged, so tht this year's election page and the next election page and so on and on might become simply one page. Badbilltucker 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that it becomes a huge maintenance task? Why not just start it that way? Dismas|(talk) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Metti

3rd party candidate of little note. Unlikely to win any election, and seems to have little national coverage. ghits: [41] NMChico24 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 09:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Chan

The case doesn't make any claim for the cases' notability. If this changes then I'd be delighted. There doesn't seem to be any notability criterion for law cases. JASpencer 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any notability standards on court cases? JASpencer 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. If I had to make a general statement, though, I'd say that cases which make national or international news would usually be kept, while ones with only local attention usually wouldn't. Of course, if any of the participants are notable, it could be mentioned in their article. For example, the Nick Nolte article mentions his drunk-driving arrest even though it was by no means a major or important crime. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the test is essentially (at least for recent cases) how much media coverage they produce or whether they have a notable party? It seems to work - although the issue of precedence is important. JASpencer 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Peake Apparel

Seems to have no importance. Only external link is to the company website; nothing links to it. I have tidied the page, but see no reason for it to remain in Wikipedia. Emeraude 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: makes no assertion of notability. David Mestel(Talk) 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Mestel. Not a speedy because CSD A7 doesn't cover corporations. MER-C 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a corporation but a group of people? David Mestel(Talk) 09:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A corporation is not but a group of people; it is a legally constituted organisation that has an existence over and above the people that form it.
    Oh,
    WP:SNOW, anyways. David Mestel(Talk) 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Corkman Irish Pub, Carlton

An irish-themed pub located in Melbourne, Australia which isn't notable for anything of an encyclopedic nature. Was previously listed for deletion in March 2006 and kept, which I noticed after this listing at AfD. Still, I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel. -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps nothing has changed. That said, there's 50+ hotels in my home town of Geelong (an hour from Melbourne) that are "historical", ie, constructed during the 1800's. I'd not dream of ever creating an article on any of them unless something of note surfaced about their history. They're simply hotels. Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true, the relationship of the pub to the local area and especially to the Carlton and United Brewery would make it reasonably notable I should think, at the very least at a local level. I don't get why this article has been nominated for deletion again after already surviving one vote - that's not on if there is no additional reason why deletion is warranted (unless supporting sources can be shown to say that the article's contents are bogus... in which case deletion is more than warranted). So please tell us - why delete it? I don't think people here value local history very highly. Yes, the article needs a cleanup, but deletion, no. I'm sick of people nominating articles again just because they don't like something on here. Can you please outline why this should be deleted now when the first AfD debate held an overwhelming consensus? (
JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply
]
Comment: I've told you once in the nomination, but I'll tell you again as you've obviously missed it. "I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel". The wording in the article makes a claim that isn't supported, like "probably aided in the consolidation of the brewery". Probably could mean it's probably true, or probably not. We're not here to decide. Ignoring those claims in the article and judging the rest, to me it reads like a pub with no claim to notability whatsoever, and
Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not arguing against "Wikipedia is not a pub guide". It's not worth it if it were just an article about a pub. It well may be, but you have not established that. I am asking you about those claims, as it is these that establishes notability of the pub, not the rest of the article. I have said that there MAY be merit in examining the claims about the connection with the CUB Brewery. What you have given on this AfD is merely your own opinion that "I don't think it's encyclopedic." However that is not a reason for deletion on WP if it is your opinion that it is encyclopedic. Did you do any research on the pub besides running a Google search and check whether it was worth deleting or whether the historical claims had any notability at all? I gather you haven't. All I am asking is that you establish a definite claim to non-notability before you nominate an article for deletion that has already survived one debate. If there is no evidence that it is not notable it shouldn't be renominated. I think there are a lot of worthy articles with local history that are deleted just because people in another state or country have never heard of them. International interest is not the only thing served on this site, you know. (
JROBBO 05:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply
]
You might have missed my comment below: "Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory." I think that qualifies as the kind of research you're talking about. Snottygobble 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why do I need to do the research? Evidence of any notability should already be included in the article. If there's anything notable about this hotel that surfaces, then recreate the article, including evidence of that notability. It's that simple. For now, it has no notability whatsoever IMHO, just unsupported claims. I'm all for local history - but not when it's just a random collection of unproven facts. As someone else has already said below, "not a lot of thought went on in the last AfD", and I agree. At least this time around we're giving the article some scrutiny - and still, no evidence whatsoever of notability has surfaced. -- Longhair\talk 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am with
JROBBO on this one. We will never know whether our learned friends put much thought into the last AfD as we only have their comments to go on. Either way though the outcome was clear - 2 delete vs 15 keep. I think we are treading on dangerous ground if articles can be re-nominated AfD (when there has been no material change to content and the information has not been disproven) just because we don't agree with the previous outcome. This seems like double jeopardy. If, as the article suggests, this is an Australian establishment with 150 years of heritage then it has local history value even if it doesn't get the right Google hits or it isn't listed on the VHR. I do agree however that some further work may be neede to uncover notability and a rename is required for it to come up to standard. amitch 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Please see
WP:CCC. AFD is a verification and quality control process for encyclopedia articles not a criminal trial for human beings, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. Bwithh 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - I just don't see it as notable enough for an article. --Roisterer 10:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first AfD seemed to build consensus that this building has local importance. I believe establishments like this are part of the historical fabric of inner city suburbs and would be of interest to readers. I do think the article needs some work (as per
    WP:LOCAL), references, a picture and a redirect to Carlton Inn (which it was called for 150 years). amitch 13:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as in last AfD. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Very limited discussion in the previous afd - arguments in favour were that the pub has a website and gets some google hits; it's quite old; and let's believe what the article says at inflated face value. I don't see any evidence of encyclopedic notability or even claim to encyclopedic notablility. The claims to fame boil down to 1) it was one of the first pubs existing outside the city centre in Melbourne. No claim here even that it might be one of the very first pubs in Melbourne. No verifiable evidence given that this building is historically notable for its architecture. 2) a theory about the connection with Carlton beer and the suburb Carlton which the article states has been disproved 3) Speculation ("probably") introduced as historical fact that the pub "aided" the early business of a local brewery (I doubt that one brewery can survive just depending on one pub, and even if the relationship was that crucial, this is hardly encyclopedic). 4) the first pub owner was a postman at the university (not notable) 5) a local football club held their reunion in the pub in 1995 (not notable) 6) students and staff at the local university
    like it (not notable) Bwithh 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nn pubcruft. Eusebeus 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say you live in Montreal... can you please tell us what you know about the non-notability a Melbourne pub? (
      JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply
      ]
  • Delete nn pub. As much as I enjoy drinking, there doesn't really seem to be anything particularly notable about this place. Lankiveil 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Per Eusebius. Rebecca 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 117 ghits, most of which are pub guides that simply list the address. Not alot of thought went on in the last AFD, as far as I can tell. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory. Snottygobble 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --
    Peta 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. A friend of mine, sadly now deceased, used to manage the place. But that doesn't make it notable either. --Robert Merkel 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Asimov

At best, article fails notability, and some versions were negative and poorly sourced. If the article could be left as it stands, (just date of birth, son of Isaac Asimov), I guess it would be a harmless nonnotable spot on Wikipedia's hard drive, but I fear the stub will be a springboard for more poorly sourced negative edits. Rich 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So?
    Ronald Goldman are three people who would be completely non-notable except for their relation to a famous person. Whether it should be notable is completely POV and should never been an issue for Wikipedia; the quesion is whether they are.--Prosfilaes 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Merely being the son of someone famous does not automatically make him famous as well. Only having 283 ghits doesn't help much either. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a textbook example of Merge/redirect to me. The current one-line stub would be better placed as a line in the article on the venerable Isaac. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already there. --MCB 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton StuartDouglas 11:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Isaac Asimov, particularly to a section dealing either with his family or with his papers. I'm sorry to hear that his son isn't doing much with his life but that's non-notable for Wikipedia; meanwhile, redirects are cheaper and more useful than anti-recreation page protections. Alba 17:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If something is notable for the world, it's notable for Wikipedia. Anti-recreation page protections should be used to protect vanity and ad pages from recreation, not to prevent the creation of a page people are actually interested in.--Prosfilaes 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me rephrase. This article belongs in the Isaac Asimov article until it becomes sufficiently notable on its own to merit a separate article. David Asmiov's only notability is his father. Therefore material on David should go under his father's article until circumstances merit otherwise. A redirect will efficiently underline this point. Alba 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something is notable for the world, it's notable for Wikipedia. Good point. Since this isn't notable for the world, out it should go. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with those above who believe that some of the negative information in the article was well sourced or fairly well sourced. Most important, the quote was attributed to an unnamed officer. That is pretty hard to falsify, especially given David Asimov's low notability. A newspaper (or possibly reckless mouthed officer) is on safe ground. I mean, if he had been the son of a famous active politician with supporters and rivals, various parts of the press would cared enough to do further digging, which would give partial braking action on the unattributed quote. By the way, I think that "average" offspring of famous people rarely get press coverage, hence notability, unless the famous person is an active politician. Rich 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this is the sort of thing that comes up in interpreting
      reliable source. This is the type of analysis that, I believe, BLP requires. --MCB 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete and Merge verifiable information into his father's page. Badbilltucker 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out in a number of AfDs, "merge and delete" is not a permitted option in AfD, since the
    GFDL requires retention of the edit history of the previous article. Thus, if an article is formally merged as you suggest, a redirect to Isaac Asimov would need to be left in place. As a practical matter, the information in the sub-stub is already there, so this article can simply be deleted. --MCB 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You're right, my apologies, I should have used other, less official, wording. I was trying to imply that the creator of the page could put in some reference to the now-deleted arrest/conviction into the father's article if it were phrased in a non-objectionable way. But at this point, given the single event of notability of the son, creating a redirect would be pointless, particularly if his father's page is the only one he would be mentioned on anyway. Badbilltucker 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if that's all there is to say about him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senuti

Software advert, does not meet

WP:WEB criteria. Nehwyn 09:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry about the deletions. Didn't know about it.
Sr13 10:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A question- Should Senuti be an article at all because of deletion guidelines (Senuti is Web content)?
Sr13 10:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ebionite Restoration Movement

Non-notable subject Alecmconroy 21:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This seems to be a very small religious group. After
    Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the group is sufficiently notable. --Alecmconroy 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete - It may be a distinct religious movement, but the article does not make this clear. If it did I would vote to keep. JASpencer 07:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the Ebionite Jewish Community article (also up for deletion) into this one. IZAK 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small religious group of no demonstrated importance.--
    Peta 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 10:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should mention-- when I say this is a "very small religious group", our best guess is we're talking 1-2 members total, such that this article borders on being a vanity page. --Alecmconroy 11:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn group,
    WP:V. Eusebeus 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Eusebeus. Pan Dan 20:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Problems of fame and faith

This 'subject' does not seem to me to warrant an article. The information in it could possibly be added to the articles on the individuals named. Nothing links to this page, and I fail to see how anything could. Emeraude 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually like deleting articles, but I have to agree that this one (which I created, though I didn't write it) doesn't fit. It was originally an appendage to another article (which has since been deleted), where it stuck out like a sore thumb, so I moved it here. But I won't be sorry to see it go. David Cannon 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, more like an essay. --Alex (Talk) 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Hello32020 12:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under
    CSD G7, OR. David Cannon is only significant contributor to the article and seems to agree with the deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep - today's featured article.

ЯEDVERS 11:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This amounts to a plot summary of a video game, and video games are not notable.--James M. 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete.--James M. 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer until it is off the front page! This is today's featured article!! If possible, speedy keep. Carcharoth 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harken, Inc.

This appears to be a simple company advertisement (spam). I'm not sure whether it should be deleted or not - so I thought the best way forward was to put it up for discussion at AfD MidgleyDJ 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I beg to differ, because any business that isn't of Microsoft proportions that has a page here then is arguably spam. This company is very well known internationally among racing sailors, and I was surprised to see it didn't have an article. Anyway, I can see removing the "dominant" part (even though that is factual...definitely for AC boats, and I'm 99% sure for Olympic non-1D classes), or taking out the logo's slogan (not sure if part of original logo--from site), but outright deletion seems...odd. Anyway, if there's any specific promotional bent to it, definitely feel free to correct it. Antije 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth looking over the guidelines for
WP:Corp, but this isnt my area of experience. MidgleyDJ 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Thanks for taking the time to point that out to me, I was actually just trying to find more on the policy. Anyway, I am fairly certain it meets the first of the criteria. I remember seeing at least product reviews in Sailing World magazine or something of that ilk, and I've heard or read the story before (got most of the included details from the web though). Just looking at their site though briefly, looks like they've won the WI Governor's business awards a couple times, as well as the "Company of the Decade" award 01 for the marine industry. Either way, as I said, it's a highly recognizable name in racing sailors and probably the majority of crusiers as well. Of course I'm biased since I just spent a bunch of time putting together the article, but it seems pretty clear-cut all the same. Antije 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Harken may not be a household name, but it is globally recognized in the sailing community. Young sailors just starting out will notice their boats are most likely Harken equipped and for older, more experienced racers it is often the brand of choice when they seek to equip their boats. That being said, please note that I am not employed in any way by Harken or the maritime industry. Although I'm not 100% sure I also strongly suspect that Harken sponsors regattas and other sailing events in communities around the world. I think it deserves an article on Wikipedia. Quintana 11:00, 1 October 2006 (Eastern Time)
Comment:Taking cues from above--I should note that I have been employed in the marine industry, but it was the retail end and over 10 years ago. I am not an employee of this company. Anyway, I will leave the rest of the discussion to you guys, unless clarification is needed. I will however, include some links of "multiple [published] independent sources." Some mentions could probably be classified as trivial, some not. (For example, it is consistently listed in boat reviews as the selected hardware. Individual articles are probably trivial, but it's clear they are a major player and noteworthy brand.)
"Harken brothers-Sailing World Hall of Fame"
"AC Cup mention (SW)"
"AC Cup mention (SW)"
"~57 mentions in Sailing Mag articles"
"One of many Sail Mag mentions" Also see Blue Water Sailing Mag and 48 deg North.
"'"The Harken" regatta - International Youth Match Racing Championship" (Also, yes, I can confirm they are major and regular regatta sponsors)
"Harken Observatory, non-sailing philanthropy"
"Harken's Innovation Created International Market for Sailing Gear"
"One of several Practical Sailor/BoatUS publication gear reviews" Antije 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the official stance on acceptance criteria for corporate articles has recently hardened. See "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm remaining neutral on this particular vote at this time. Bwithh 15:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reviewing Brad's memo on Corporate Vanity I feel that the argument for keeping the Harken article is strengthened. The article does not seek to deface, insult or slander Harken, and at the same time it is not a marketing ploy to promote any of Harken's products. I feel that the article is more informative and educational on how Harken was founded, company history, and where Harken products are used. If the article needs to be edited further to remove any apparent marketing pitches please proceed, but I do not think it should be deleted if we are to follow Brad's guidelines and the Wikipedian spirit. User:Quintana 11:44, 1 October 2006 (Eastern Time)
  • Delete. The article reads too much like an advertisement, and I believe it won't have much general appeal. Sailing is interesting, but specific makers of sailing equipment don't seem very interesting. This company appears to make good stuff, but you don't expect to get product advice from Wikipedia. EdJohnston 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this doesn't read significantly like an advert to me and they appear to be notable in their field. I would like to see a few more third party references though. Thryduulf 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Petros471 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Atheocracy

Neologism about a concept that is better dealt with at state atheism--T. Anthony 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 35700 ghits, none in the top ten outside Wikipedia or blogs. MER-C 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and WP:NEO. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the publicizer of proposed new words. EdJohnston 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete these, merge possible. W.marsh 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golly! Ghost!

obscure none notable game will never be anything beyond a stub--M8v2 02:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On Wikipedia, all video games should be notable. Billy Blythe 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Released by Namco, that is probably enough to assert notability.--Húsönd 15:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Isdoc 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn 15-yr old game. Eusebeus 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly disagree that all video games should be notable, but I think Billy more likely means ones released officially on consoles and arcade games. While I agree to a point, I think in certain cases many games might be best done up as single pages. Certainly there's no reason the two games in this series can't be combined into one, and I agree that being by Namco helps its case. As for anything beyond a stub? Well, no, it could theoretically be expanded, with screenshots and all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real game, it may not be extensively described, but it should still exist. Still, I wouldn't mind if the two articles were combined, the two games aren't that different. FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lack of notability by itself is not a reason to delete, and the precedent is that commercial arcade games get articles. Merge the information from
    Golly! Ghost! 2 into this article, to provide more context and keep all the information on the series together in one convenient place. — Haeleth Talk 12:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete these, merge possible. W.marsh 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golly! Ghost! 2

Obscure none notable game will never be anything but a stub--M8v2 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On Wikipedia, all video games should be notable. Billy Blythe 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Isdoc 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but redirect to the original article. The two games probably only warrant a single article, but they should get one. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Golly! Ghost!. Where there's so little to say about individual games in a series, it makes sense to have one larger article that provides all the information in one convenient place, rather than forcing people to click between several stubs. — Haeleth Talk 12:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Merge and delete is not a valid option, so as I couldn't find anything that was significant in this article to merge I've gone down on the delete side.

Petros471 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of the Muslim Empires

Two full fledged and fleshed out articles already exist which cover the same material

Muslim history. Tigeroo 12:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge any useful content, then delete as redundant. MER-C 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per above. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete, duh! Alba 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to the existing articles, and is so short it is unlikely to contain anything they do not. The author should be invited to help improve the existing articles. EdJohnston 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Petros471 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

M.U.S.H.A. Aleste

Well this article hasn't improved in long time. Also doesn't seem important enough to meet Wikipedia's standards! Also it does not contain enough information. ShadowKinght (Talk?!?) 03:56 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability, article has not been worked on in four months, very short. The game dates from 1990, so unless this was a very well-written article, I'm not sure of the interest. EdJohnston 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oprius Software

May fail

WP:WEB. Alexa.com shows rank as 255,365; not too bad, not too good. Company appears to be expanding by graph, though. Patstuart 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Company and product is new, but starting to gain a lot of attention. It is featured on the front page of TurboGears here. Also has some independent blog posts written about it. You can see the start of the climb on Alexa.com FooManChu55 9:08, 29 September 2006 (PST)

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. Not a website, but a corporation thus not a speedy (yet). MER-C 13:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication it pases WP:CORP or WP:SOFT. Eusebeus 16:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Robert Theodore Pappalardo

No assertion of notability, just of high affiliation. Djcartwright 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I've just restored it per the user's request with the caveat that it would probably not survive long. - Lucky 6.9 07:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I'm working on it, hopefully adding significant info that will make it notable enough for retention. Toniskids 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that DumbBOT "imcomplete/listed" post mean? (Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm sorry.) Does that mean the article is still marked for deletion? I've added further facts and citations. Is there anything else I can/should do, or will the article be deleted in X number of days regardless?

Thanks .... Toniskids 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toniskids: It's a procedural thing; articles nominated for deletion need to be listed on a couple pages, and the nominator forgot one or more of those steps. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't "forget" anything. It was speedy-deleted in mid-process, and then restored later. I didn't bother to finish trying to delete an article that didn't exist anymore; wasn't counting on the possibility that it be restored later. Djcartwright 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too long to be a stub, but still nothing demonstrating notability. The Photon 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even in view of the additions since it was nominated, it still reads like a magazine article instead of an encyclopedia article, and doesn't explain why R. T. Pappalardo is notable in and of himself. Djcartwright 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wirthing

Rather incoherent, most of the links on this page redirect back upon themselves, no context provided, etc Lankiveil 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Almost a speedy. MER-C 13:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context provided. Part of a walled garden - only circular redirects link into this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as context-free nonsense. Make sure to clean up the redirects. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't explain what its subject is; nor does it cite sources from which such an explanation can be found. Looking, I cannot find anything, either. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but sources are required. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Erlander

Article about a person who has no notability outside of who she married. Fails

WP:BIO. Valrith 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Restitution Transfer and Recoupment

This is some libertarian's pet concept, with a grand total of 4 unique google hits including Wikipedia [51], excluding Wikipedia it gets nothing. It seems to be a model for a private police force and legal system, although it's hard to be sure: the article is written in technical legal language and a listy format. As far as I can see, 'RTR' has never been put into practice or discussed in any published work. In short, this article is

unverifiable and non-notable. I have also prodded the principal contributor's other main project Las Portadas for deletion as a non-notable proposed micronation. Nydas 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per above. --Richard 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. "Permission granted by the patentholder and noted on original publication." is meaningless. Permission could only be granted by the copyright holder. (Also delete as
    WP:OR
    .)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete a7. Luna Santin 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath the Burning Pyre

This entry fails to meet the criteria of

WP:BAND. speedy tag removed by article creator. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Business Desktop Deployment

This entry fails to meet the criteria of

WP:SOFTWARE. Content was removed along with the prod tag. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete as a non-notable band,

WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Man born blind

This entry does not meet the criteria of

WP:BAND. The nobility claims are not sourced, and even if they wereI don't they would quality - the college radio chats and rotation on a single station (vs radio network). Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 16:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mebious.co.uk

This entry does not meet the criteria of

WP:WEB. The changes after the prod tag were an improvement, but does not elevate the entry to the required criteria. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

PDF Zone

This entry does not meet the requirements of

WP:WEB. No changes were made after deletion of the prod tag by an anon. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Trek: Reborn

Non-notable fan fiction. (Not a fan series like New Voyages, but just scripts/stories) Mnemeson 13:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rostek Horn

Non-notable Star Wars character, from a "fictional" Star Wars universe. Prod removed by anon

Wildthing61476 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Uaw local 900

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article contains nothing to justify a place, and potentially every UAW local could have a similar page. Possible merge into UAW article if anyone wants to make a section there on UAW branches. Emeraude 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by William M. Connolley as "junk". Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fith Dimension

The page is nonsense, contains too many errors to be worth correcting (including spelling in the title!), has not been linked, is not linked to. This article is not needed. There is perfectly good article (Fifth dimension) which does the job. Emeraude 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Hardy

This article, as far as I can tell, fails

WP:HOLE. I can't tell why we need an article about a minor British captain. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French
14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; the article now clearly fufills
WP:HOLE. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Result was Speedy Delete. Gwernol 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great toolset disappointment of '06

This is a disputed prod. Originally prodded as an unencyclopedic joke article; suggest deletion per

WP:NFT. Muchness 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete as unverified without sources. (aeropagitica) 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ups and Downs

Nominate per, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No verifiable sources given.

хот 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedily deleted as spam by Vegaswikian. MER-C 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Design Directory

No assertion of notability. Delete per

WP:WEB. Haakon 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

World Wide Design Directory is a respected industry resource. It was noted by such magazines as How, Print, Computer Arts and many more, featured on BBC (Click on Line), and listed by many online resources, for example in DMOZ Best of the Web directory DMOZ Best of the Web directory. --Falkond 17:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - spam. Artw 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 (unremarkable web content) or G11 (spam). Take your pick, tagged for A7. MER-C 04:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you label something as spam that fast, did you bother to go to the web site? That directory is most inelegant way on the internet to find a design company, and Hundreds of people use it daily and find it useful. You list other niche directories on the List of web directories, why this one is not good enough? There are years of work and selection behind that directory, and you can make a decision in a few seconds that nobody needs it? --Falkond

It's probably a useful and nice service, but it has to
fulfill notability criteria for it to be included in an encyclopedia. --Haakon 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ska

This article fails

WP:BIO. None of the 42 unique search hits augments notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

As a new member, I am inspired by feedback to make productive changes to the article in order to follow the guidelines and to help in my learning experience. I have made changes to the article to keep it within the rules for

biographies of living persons
. • Verifiability • Neutral point of view •
No original research
I would be happy to take on other feedback; I am doing this as a learning experience for future projects for my position. I have direct contact with the individuals the page is about, and I have their permission to publish the page. I have checked the facts in the page with what they have published about themselves, and with what is common knowledge. I found their biographies intriguing because of their large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. I am still learning about how to set up the cite sources and should have more to add in the future. Please review the changes I have made prior to deleting and let me know what further links I need to read to make the corrections needed. Thanks Enamoredgirl

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

The result was delete as unverifiable with sources. (aeropagitica) 20:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Hanger

Apparently unverifiable from any reliable source The Anome 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This position is obviously possible. The only questions are whether (1) it is notable enough to get its own article (2) whether the name "italian hanger" has any sort of general acceptance. Point 2 in particular should be applied to various other sex position articles. --Strait 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged information to Fiscal year and deleted page. (aeropagitica) 20:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting reference date

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable location. (aeropagitica) 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Letterkenny Shopping Centre

Advertisement for non-notable shopping mall. An earlier version of this article has previously been through afd and deleted.

Pathlessdesert 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • well it is the largest shopping centre in donegal. is that not notable???????--Candelwicke 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • how can it not be notable because of its size. what about all those dublin shopping centres about the largest out of town shopping centre and so on. this is the largest shopping centre in donegal. not in the town of letterkenny the whole of county donegal. i think i've made my point--Candelwicke 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find a reference to it being the largest shopping centre in County Donegal.Afn 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've made it, but it's wrong. The shed in my back garden is the largest shed in my back garden. Anything can be the "largest X in Y", for suitable Y. Our
      cite any published works on the subject of this shopping mall, if they exist. Uncle G 11:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

go ahead, i will be back do what you wish i tried my best i will fight |--Candelwicke 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, but... Definitely not vanity/ad. Keep only if expanded, image added, etc... Delete if kept as is. --Shuki 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you at last someone agrees with me. but i'll need some time to get a picture.--Candelwicke 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i added some more. more will be added later. why complain i see other articles about shopping centres and they don't have anything notable and are like 2 sentences long. this articles is long enough. case closed. let me take care of the article and ye can worry about more important things. thank you for your assistance...--Candelwicke 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If you find any other unencyclopedic articles about non-notable shopping malls, you are free to post them under articles for deletion too. I have no idea why you think you need to "fight for Letterkenny", or why this process seems to involve creating pages about shopping venues in the town. I am sure that Letterkenny will survive without your help in this particular area. You should also consider using a single account in order to edit the Letterkenny-based articles, assuming that these are also you:
    Pathlessdesert 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, as nom. Demiurge 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable, after all it is the largest centre in Donegal--Water100 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - user's first edit. Demiurge 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What--Candelwicke 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Courtyard

Advertisement for shopping mall. See also

Pathlessdesert 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

i do my best i spend my days editing wiki and by god i will never give up. so you can wipe your up or whatever ye people do but lets get one thing straight i will never back down. i will fight for the town of letterkenny.--Candelwicke 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Candelwicke, grow up. You're not fighting for the town, you're embarressing it. Afn 10:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Shopping centres are businesses. The relevant standard is therefore
    GRBerry 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of English words of Bengali origin

Appears redundant. There is no list, despite the article being created 2 March 2005. There IS a link to a list in Wiki Dictionary, which contains but 3 words. Shame: I expected there to be something worthwhile and interesting here, but alas..... Sorry, but I can see no reason not to delete. Emeraude 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Petros471 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Niehenke

Not notable per

WP:BIO. Leibniz 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

It is a POV fork if I ever saw one. The whole purpose is try to distinguish anarcho-capitalism as something other than a legitimate form of anarchism. Even the title implies that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. There is already a

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article, so why the need for another POV fork? Any claims that anarcho-capitalism is not "legit" anarchism should go in there. DTC 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - This isn't a fork, but instead a
related article, concerning not criticism of an-cap but a discussion of an-caps position within the wider anarchism movement. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Because saying an-cap isn't a form of anarchism isn't strictly speaking a criticism but rather a description. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a discussion of the question of an-cap's place in the wider anarchist movement. It's the most NPOV discussion of this problem on WP! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And isn't legitimate form of anarchism coming close to an oxymoron? JASpencer 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The degree to which this is untrue, or rather insufficient, is the problem this article was (painstakingly, I might add) written to address. There are two arguments against accepting anarcho-capitalism as anarchistic, which are similar to why one might not call
Zanu PF. Firstly, the "an-cap is an oxymoron" argument states that because capitalism (and in particular an-cap) supports the authority of ownership absolutely what would be achieved under an-cap wouldn't be a lack of a state but a series of private states, thereby a non-anarchy. The other argument is to point out that anarchism is more than a concept but a historical practice and a body of theory, one being entirely, incontrovertably anti-capitalist. This article sets out to address this, and shouldn't be deleted but made the cornerstone of the WP approach to an-cap-as-anarchism. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
"If the article is supposed be about whether anarcho-capitalism's claim that it's a form of anarchism is a false claim". It isn't this - it is a discussion on that claim but especially on the relationship between the an-cap movement and the (universally socialistic) anarchism movement that predates and rejects an-cap. It is concerned only with an-cap-as-anarchism, and is not a discussion of the criticisms of an-cap at all. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Since when does a form of anarchism have to be like other forms of anarchism?" When the point under discussion makes the two mutually exclusive, like the support for capitalism in this case. To those who view an-cap as non-anarchism say anarcho-capitalism is like enviro-strip mining. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - POV fork? It is, or rather should be, a discussion of one particular problem, like omnipotence paradox or human rights in Myanmar. For it to be a POV fork would require an Anarcho-capitalism as anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism as non-anarchism page or equivalents, instead both are discussed on this single, informative page. I'm sure every who has commented on this has had a lot of exposure to this type of argument, and having an article on that argument is quite necessary, and especially not a POV fork! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An article dealing with discussion of one particular problem is fine when that problem is widely discussed in literature. However, question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not a theme of any scholarly work that I know of, so content of this article is original research, and subject itself is non-notable. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Blatantly untrue. Real scholarship on anarchism is rare, most cited works are simply broad works on philosophy and politics that mention without any real analysis what people say. Proper scholarship on anarchism is by anarchists - Chomsky, Peter Marshall, Paul Avrich, Howard Zinn, etc. Proper scholarship on "anarcho"-capitalism is virtually non-existent, aside from its own proponents. It's been nearly 100 years (1910) since one of the most respected works of reference, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, requested that Kropotkin write the section on anarchism because they recognised that the hostility against its ideas blighted virtually all other sources. This remains true, those who truly analyse and document anarchist ideas are anarchists themselves, thus the dispute between anarchism proper and "anarcho"-capitalism is central to the primary academic discussion of anarchism. Donnacha 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I can assure you whether anarcho-capitalism should be included under the umbrella of anarchim is not discussed in academia. If anyone needs sources from a wide range of scholars taking for granted that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, look at my Userpage for a large list. This is a dispute manufactured by some people on the internet that does not exist in academia.Anarcho-capitalism 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment So, Chomsky's not a part of academia now, really? Donnacha 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Chomsky says it's a "strain of anarchism" and calls it "right-wing anarchism." Sure, he doesn't like it but that's because he's a leftist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I can see why some say "just put the contents into CRITICISM of..." I disagree with the POV proclaimers -- because a LOT of the content is not pro- or anti- but instead is just comparing to / contrasting with individualist anarchism (many people equate the two -- see esp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_as_a_form_of_individualist_anarchism ) so perhaps THIS article could have any alleged POV content removed/edited, and the rest stay as-is and linked to from the "criticism" article?199.214.27.205 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a bad faith nomination to me. If the nomination instead was based on that it gives undue weight to ancap then it would perhaps be another issue. // Liftarn 12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Davey Lloyd George 18:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Greco-Roman deities and their Norse counterparts

No source is mentioned, which is logical inasmuch as the value of these equivalences seems very doubtful to me, for several reasons.

The chart gives equivalences between Greek and Norse gods but:

  • there was no such “equivalences made in ancient times”, because pagan Greeks had no contact with Scandinavians, and because later Scandinavian writers of the Middle Ages had a mostly Latin, not Greek, cultural background;
  • I’m not sure these equivalences have very often been “proposed by modern scholars”, at least over the last century. Interesting comparisons can be made only between religions who both share important Indo-European features, which is not really the case of Greek paganism (cf. Georges Dumézil’s work, who hardly ever dealt with Greek myths).

A few equivalences exist though between Norse and Roman deities, made both in ancient times (cf. Tacitus) and by modern scholars (cf. Dumézil again), but they’re far from being as numerous as in this chart, and far from being as obvious too. For instance, Odin is given here as the counterpart of Zeus / Jupiter, but he’s sometimes given as the equivalent of Mercury (cf. Wednesday) or Mars.

Finally, most of these equivalences are very much questionable: for instance Gefjun / Tyche, whereas Gefjun is generally connected to Diana (sometimes Vesta), or Járnsaxa / Athena: Járnsaxa is not even a goddess, but a giantess. I could give several other examples of deities who have nothing, or hardly anything, in common.

That’s the reasons why I think the few interesting facts should be mentioned in

Interpretatio romana, and the rest should be deleted. Sigo 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep per cleanup. (aeropagitica) 19:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police v City of Newark

Delete per

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Jersey Devil 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fossy

Urban dictionary neolgism, fails

Irongargoyle 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chevrian statistics

Delete. An article about an analytical method developed by

sources, nor does the term show up on Google (and I even checked Google scholar just in case). Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, scope of the article or possible move can be discussed on its talk page, doesn't seem like there's a consensus to delete it just yet. W.marsh 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web application development

Somebodies private essay article, with strong how-to aspects, covering an area that is already heavily covered. Artw 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not a private essay article. I did gather some information on the subject. I started this article because I don't think this topic IS heavily covered, and I would like to see some community input. For example, what development methodologies do people developing web applications use? I couldn't find this information on Wikipedia. There's plenty of information on web design. And there's plenty of information on software development. But I haven't seen much about web application development.

Now, I'm making the distinction between web design and web application development. Are you making the same distinction between web design and web development? If so, maybe we could merge these articles, since I don't see nearly enough useful information on the web development page. DRogers 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikibooks per nominator. -- RHaworth 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. What other articles cover this area? Web application development is certainly related to (or a subset of) software development, but anyone who has worked on both traditional software and web app projects will tell you that each has distinct challenges. Kla'quot 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. If we decide to keep it, we should first determine what is and isn't in scope and what level of detail is appropriate. There's a bunch of info on here about software development, but not how it relates to web app development. DRogers 04:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has the flavor of a how-to article, and is not able to go into detail anywhere. The result is an article that just sounds like common sense. EdJohnston 15:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Emotionics

Original research, neologism and advertising for public speaking workshops. Author is head of the "Collective". Didactylos 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

REUNITE!

Hoax, no Google hits, the official page of the artist does not include information about this single. I have already tagged the image as an attack, but the article can't be speedied as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete - I am surprised this article is not going through speedy deletion. mirageinred 19:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Apl66 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a fansite claims it existshttp://www.ayumi-hamasaki.org/singles.htm, but couldn't find anything on the official Japanese website on it. Only "UNITE!" but not "REUNITE!".--Andeh 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm blind, but I can't even see any mention of REUNITE! on the fansite you linked to. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it in that fansite's forums -- something that would certainly be there if there was even a rumour going around about a new single. Consequently, delete this per
      WP:V unless something compelling comes up soon. — Haeleth Talk 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Legacy Project

The user didnt edit this article in months, leaving the 'Methods' setion pretty much empty. Their is no link to the site, they say they are going to implement that govermental system in a decade, and the neutrality is already disputed.

Talk - Contributions 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy Keep, bad-faith nomination.

Naconkantari 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

OS-tan

DELETE

WP:SPAM Iufd 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy keep Not the best written article, but interesting and informative. --Ideogram 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks a lot different than the last time I saw it, and there is OR and CRUFT, but neither are grounds for deletion, and I dispute the SPAM. Kelvinc 01:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This article may have its flaws, but it is interesting and informative! Plus it has several pages that depend on it. I do not know what the guy trying to get it deleted is thinking.--NewYinzer 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Highcore

Prod removed one week ago, but no improvement since then. Article does not state the importance, is just a list of bands that one unnamed man feels are one genre, although it isn't said what makes them different from other bands not included. Neologism by unnamed person with unclear definition, so fails

Fram 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Butt Nugget and the Silent Cane

The article is deceptively long but it's still about an unnotable Myspace-band that self-produces its music and whose claim to fame is being in the "top 50 general comedy chart" on soundclick.com, hardly a reliable measure of his importance. The creator of the page is 84theman (talk · contribs) which brings in a problem of vanity (as "The man" seems to be the artist's self-chosen nickname). Ghits at 1300 but actually, that's 42 unique hits [59] pretty much all sites that freely host anyone's music. Pascal.Tesson 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete overblown advertising. Opabinia regalis 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain.
    Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Interesting, and probably valid, points all around. Forgive me for not reading the notability guidelines before posting. While it is true that BNATSC has not had any major commercial success, as far as "internet" bands go, BNATSC is, in my opinion legendary. A look at the artist's statistics on mp3.com, purevolume.com, myspace.com, soundclick.com, and download.com will reveal that BNATSC has received well over 120,000 listens, something most "myspace bands" never accomplish. Add in the fact that, BNATSC does not tour or promote his music regularly, and you'll see that the sheer volume of his popularity is quite impressive for being a result of heresay alone. A quick search on youtube.com will also reveal several fan videos of BNATSC songs.

Regardless, does this entry stand up as valid in light of the notability requirements for musicians and bands? I do not believe so. Though it does stand up against the vanity argument. My name is Todd and I am a long-time fan of BNATSC from Littleton, CO. I wrote the article to suit the interests of myself, the artist, and other devoted fans like myself.

I will not delete this article, but, in the light of my comments, feel free to do so. 84theman 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fybertech

Article describes a website, its proprietor and a fictional project hosted on that website. None of these things appear to meet our standards of

notability. The website does not have an Alexa rank, and nearly all relevant Google results are from the proprietor's LiveJournal, etc. This article appears to be promoting a project known to a small group of people, rather than reporting on something that is already notable. FreplySpang 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fluff in Brooklyn

Article does not pass

Wikipedia is not for advertising is a principle that applies. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. (aeropagitica) 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Courts

Non notable apartment complex, prod removed with no reason, Delete--

wat's sup 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • CommentSome readers may have access to NY Times online via their public library or school library, so I provided the link as a convenience, but it available on microfilm at any large public library. I hope providing a subscription online link doe not disqualify a reference as verifiable.Edison 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete partly due to verifiability concerns, but even if the solar thing were settled, "first public housing complex with solar water heat" is a pretty thin claim to notability. Opabinia regalis 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPossibly more notable than every song by every rock group, every high school, every numbered road, every character in a video game, or every bus route in the world, all of which seem to have articles.Edison 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I don't agree with you. Opabinia regalis 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with only two votes, both for retaining the article. (aeropagitica) 19:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBread

Has been

reliable sources as well as proposed software guidelines. Delete as such. Wickethewok 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • You did not address any of my concerns regarding failing WP:V and WP:RS. Being listed at some mod sites does not make it meet WP's policies for verifiability.Wickethewok 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steampowered is not just some mod site. It's
Steam program. They made the site and they made the program. And they are also the ones that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2. If someone is playing Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Day of Defeat: Source, etc, then they have Steam. Wouldn't the developers of the game that the mod is made for be considered reliable? It's not as if Valve is arbitrarily deciding that any mod made for one of their games is worthy enough to be officially listed through their own content distribution program. MarphyBlack 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • You talk as if being officially recognized by Valve, quite possibly the most authoritative source around on the subject of Half-Life mods (they made the game, after all), is merely something to scoff at. Anyway, I think that you fail to grasp the concept at hand here. Valve is not simply just listing the mod on their site (although this in of itself is an exceptionally high honor), but they're actively helping to distribute the mod by directly advertising it through Steam. The same can only be said of about 20 or so other Half-Life mods.
  • If you want more "reputable, reliable, third-party sources", Brainbread was also Mod of the Week (Or month, depending on how you look at it) at Planet Half-Life, a very notable, insanely well-known, and nearly definitive Half-Life news site run on the GameSpy network. If for some reason you wish to question PHL's notability, check Google's first result for a search of "Half-Life". MarphyBlack 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms (computer game)

Has been

verifiability. Delete as such. Wickethewok 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • If someone can provide a link/citation to the PC Gamer article, I will withdraw the AFD. Wickethewok 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, if only historically. Was an extremely popular mod, won several awards, was published by valve on their GOTY and CS retail releases, and an appreciation of its characteristics has direct relevance to upcoming HL2 mods such as WaW and FA:S. It also debateably introduced a number of features which are now common to FPSs such as stamina, reinforcements, territorial control game mode and going prone. Admittedly the article isnt in a very good state atm, and could probably be regarded as a stub, but that in itself not grounds for deletion, just for improvement Modest Genius talk 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Modest Genius's reply. --Falcorian (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is so lazy. You're nominating a mod that came with the official retail release of
    n 00:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, very notable Half-Life mod. MarphyBlack 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Your reason to delete it is even more vague than the arguments put forth in the first deletion process. We've covered this before. It isn't the greatest article in the world but that means you help it become something better, not help it become something worse. Or in this case, nothing at all. Natrapsmai— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.139.16 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn due to new information. Wickethewok 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopia (computer game)

Doesn't seem to meet

reliable sources. Was previously nom'd before, which triggered massive sockpuppetry. There have been no attempts to make the article compliant with verifiability policies since. If there are reliable sources (which I haven't found), the article makes no mention of them. Wickethewok 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I'm saying that it isn't verifiable through reliable sources, which is cause for deletion. Please prove me wrong. The first paragraph of
    WP:V#Burden_of_evidence makes this quite clear. Wickethewok 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Is it possible to protect this article from further AfD noms? I believe we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dystopia is notable, verifiable and worthy of inclusion here. (To be honest I'm still not sure why it was nom'd in the first place!) The Kinslayer 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, however articles that have been nominated and been kept are less likely to be deleted or nominated for deletion in the future. Wickethewok 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by me. This is one of a number of articles that are either a hoax, vandalism, or the product of psychosis. See User:Johnfox2007 for more. - Richardcavell 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fox MP

Part of a series of hoax articles made by User:Johnfox2007. This Member of the UK Parliament does not exist, nor does his ministerial post Minister for Making Poverty History, which I am including in this nomination after the prod was removed without comment. Nydas 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. -- Kicking222 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. (heh) -Harmil 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both-- danntm T C 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alana Moore

Vanity article for a non-notable porn actress. Attempt to bring sources and notability into question was simply reverted without comment. Harmil 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable porn star. JDoorjam Talk 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Candace Von

Non-notable bio. Prod was removed by original author without comment or resolution of the concerns. Harmil 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Door from hell

Non-notable YouTube movie. Unlisted in IMDB. Can find no

reliable sources talking about the movie or the blog it's now associated with. Prod contested by anon editor. Article's creator is Doorfromhell (talk • contribs), so a likely vanity article. eaolson 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riblja čorba

Prod removed but I cannot establish compliance with

WP:Music. Delete. Bridgeplayer 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus, so a default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strata (band)

A non-notable band. Detect VanityGreen hornet 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - They have an album on a notable label and their work has been featured in notable movie and video game releases. May not meet the letter of
    WP:MUSIC as far as having TWO releases, but seems to meet the spirit of what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. The inclusion of the article feels written in more good faith then these kind of AfDs are. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Put Elvis in there. You can even put Rev. Horton Heat in there. Those fellows were famous. They had a lot of music released. This band isn't notable according to Wikipedia policy. They have one release? How did it chart? Did it chart at all? Because anyone can have a cd out these days on certain labels. International tour? Maybe Canada is technically international. Its within walking distance of many American cities though. And playing all-ages venues that fit 50 people is a far cry from the kind of international tour that an actual notable like U2 puts on. Let's keep Wikipedia clutter free.

I am Friedchicken88 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

30uv1437

This article is for a non-notable speedrun, about which the claims made just can't be verified. There's no

reliable source
claiming that this is the fastest ever, nor will there ever be, since the reliable sources that cover video game world records don't cover tool-assisted speedrunning (or much speedrunning in general, for that matter). This may be a world record, but it's a world record in such a narrow category (tool-assisted human-controlled Doom II speedrunning) that it's never going to be verifiable.

This was prodded but was deprodded with the justification that it's difficult to verify such things in reliable sources. I argue that things that cannot be verified do not belong in this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable enough for its own article even if it were verifiable. --Mr. Billion 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mr. Billion and nom. Individual speedrun video files are a rather narrow category. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently not notable.
    Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Cool, but not notable. Banpei 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Samoa Joe's winning streak

Nothing but fancruft and listcruft Patstuart 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This can be useful and interesting information, but it belongs as part of Samoa Joe. It doesn't need or deserve its own page. Stephen Day 02:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yatti

Fails

WP:NEO; "Yatti marijuana" on google comes up with nothing worth noting Patstuart 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom and
    Aaron 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

but there are other entries in wikipedia itself that read like how to guides for drugs so you argument for that is irrelevant (such as, the shotti page, the bong page, and even the coke page is way worse) and the fact that you don't even understand the legal charges that invole the possession of illigal paraphernalia or pot, would only get you around a month or less in jail, a fine, or they might just let you off. It seems to me like you are just being difficult in this situation for no reason, but if your webpage is supposed to be this great encyclopedia, well then excluding one page while allowing others in the same category is wrong, maybe the page does not get the hits you think it requires, then tell the page creators how to change that, and if you do not believe that the popularity of yattis is not on the rise you are wrong, I live in Canada as well and I have herd of them, I garuntee in 5 years it will be all over the place and with this page your site will be ahead of everone else, either way you should not be attacking the page the way you are, treat all people the same no matter their background, all are equal, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.164.121 (talk • contribs)

no, the problem is not how many hits the page gets; the problem is that the term "yatti" appears non-existent on the internet; in other words, the term gets no hits on google at any other site either. Which means it's a
neologism, and any other articles in such a category are flagged for deletion as well. I hope this clears things up. -Patstuart 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

poor editing and inappropriate content on other pages are no excuse! because the comment by 129.173.164.121 did not log in with a user name I am forced to respond here, but I would like to remind that person to more directly address their own reasons for keeping or deleting the article here and direct the extraneous criticism of my viewpoint, in a manner that does not directly pertain to the AfD, to my talk page. I would do the same, but it would not reach someone not signing in without a username. Canadian drug law has a maximum sentence of 5 years for marijuana possesion. It *is* the maximum, and would not be used for a first offense, but it does agree with my statement that it could fetch 5 years in prison. See

neologism and an encyclopedia should report about drug use not instruct on how to!Mj the deletionist 09:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. --

Steel 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of bands with punctuation marks in their names

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this seems too much like "bandcruft." --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps List of everyone named Bob? Delete per nom. JPG-GR 07:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see, if only I'd thought of that..QuagmireDog 09:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notorious article on the
    Omassey 09:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment A discursive article sounds an interesting prospect, but this is unlikely to form the basis of it. Warofdreams talk 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't seem to me like any cruft so much as a reference point, useful because it links throughout the site. I could argue that the list serves as a platform for interested users to link between these bands and see what they have in common. At least it's useful for checking to make sure you know how many exclaimation points there are in Gravy Train!!!!. Electronique 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

iablo 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Global reality

Nomination for deletion Article is vague, contextless and unencyclopedic. Fails

WP:RS. Concept appears to be related to obscure trance spiritualist medium New Age thinking centered on Jane Roberts as described in Personal reality - but there is no assertion of encyclopedic notability here. The use of a common phrase for this concept makes google check difficult. But there are zero hits for "Global reality" and "Transformational Processing" (a high level term from the website in the article's external link) on google, googlescholar, google books [60] [61][62]. Nothing for "global reality" + "jane roberts" [63][64] on gscholar and gbooks. Only ~125 hits on main google[65]
. While I also find it highly questionable, I am not nominating the Personal Reality article at this time as there are much more substantial results from a google search incl. Jane Roberts. The connection between PR and GR also stopped me from prodding. Bwithh 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uninformative and vague. --Mr. Billion 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article says almost nothing, there are no references and the content is not verifiable. EdJohnston 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_1&oldid=1116878322"